DOCSLIB.ORG

IN the SUPREME COURT of INDIA Writ Petition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IN the SUPREME COURT of INDIA Writ Petition IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2006, Transferred Case Nos. 82 to 90 of 2006 and Writ Petition (C) No. 129 of 2006 Decided On: 10.01.2007 Appellants: Raja Ram Pal Vs. Respondent: The Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Ors. Hon'ble Judges: Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J., K.G. Balakrishnan, C.K. ThakkerR.V. Raveendran and D.K. Jain, JJ. C o u n s e l s : For Appearing Parties: Ram Jethmalani, P.N. Lekihi, T.R. Andhyarujina, Sr. Advs., Krishan Singh Chauhan, Indra Pratap Singh, Gyan Mitra, Chand Kiran, P.K. Jayakrishnan, K.C. Lamba, Sudha Pal, V.K. Shukla, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Ashish Tripathi, K.K. Mohan, Nawal Kishore Jha, M.P. Jha, Harshvardha Jha, Ram Ekbal Roy, Rani Jethmalani, Harish Pandey, Samar Bansal, Abhik Kumar, P.R. Mala, Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Rajesh Kumar, Sanjai Tiwari, Lata Krishnamurthi, Sachin Jain, Mukesh Kumar Tripathi, Lokesh Kumar, M.K. Garg, Meenakshi Arora, S.K. Mehndiratta, Pranav Sen, S.W.A. Qadri, Mahra, R.M. Sharma, Sushma Suri, Advs. For Attorney General for India: Gopal Subramanian, ASG.,Dayan Krishnan, Gautam Narayan, Satyakam, T.S. Murthy, Raghenth Basant, Aman Ahluwalia, Arunav Patnaik, Abhishek Tiwari and D.S. Mahra, Advs. Subject: Constitution Acts/Rules/Orders: Constitution of India (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 - Sections 15, 19 and 26; Bill of Rights Act, 1688 - Schedule - Article 9; Parliamentary Privilege Act, 1770; East India Company Act, 1784; Charter Act, 1833; Charter Act, 1853; Charter Act, 1854; Charter Act, 1861; Charter Act, 1892; Charter Act, 1909; Government of India Act, 1915 - Sections 63, 65, 67, 67(1), 67(6), 67(7) and 80A; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1898 - Sections 135A and 323; Government of India Act 1919 - Section 67; Legislative Members Exemption Act, 1925 - Section 67; Indian Press Act, 1931; Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 28, 28(1), 28(2), 28(3), 28(4), 71, 71(1), 71(2) and 71(3); Indian Independence Act 1947 - Section 6(2); Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 - Sections 8 to 11; Parliamentary Privilege Act, 1987 - Sections 4 and 8; Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968; Constitutiton of India - Articles 1, 3, 4, 13, 13(2), 14, 19, 19(1), 19(2), 19(6), 20, 21, 32, 61, 67, 75(2), 76(4), 79 to 88, 89 to 98, 99, 100, 101 to 103, 104, 105, 105(1), 105(2), 105(3), 106, 107 to 122, 122(1), 123, 124, 124(4), 124(5), 136,143, 143(1), 148, 156(1), 165(3), 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 179, 183, 190 to 193, 194, 194(1), 194(2), 194(3), 208, 208(1), 211, 212, 212(1), 212(2), 213, 217, 217(3), 226, 227, 246, 294(3), 311, 311(2), 311(3), 315, 317, 324, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 333 to 334, 356, 356(1) and 368; Constitution of India (52nd Amendment) Act 1985; Constitution of India (30th Amendment) Act, 1975; Companies Act, 1956 - Section 237; East India Company Act, 1773; Crimes Act 1961 - Section 108; Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969; Constitution Act, 1902 - Section 19 Cases Referred: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/0445/1973; Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India MANU/SC/0060/1992; I. Manilal Singh v. H . Borobabu S i n g h MANU/SC/0102/1994; Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms MANU/SC/0394/2002; In Re: Gujarat Assembly Election matter MANU/SC/0891/2002; People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India MANU/SC/0234/2003; Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand MANU/SC/0075/2005; Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India MANU/SC/0399/2006; Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India MANU/SC/3865/2006; Burdett v. Abbott 14 East, 1; Richard William Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd. 1994 (S) WLR 970; Pickin v. British Railways Board (1974) AC 765; Pepper v. Hart 1993] AC 593; Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd.; Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shree Krishna Sinha and Ors. MANU/SC/0020/1960; Janardan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad 1951 SCR 344; State of Karnataka v. Union of India MANU/SC/0144/1977; Armstrong v. Budd (1969) 71 SR 386 (NSW); Shrikant v. Vasantrao MANU/SC/0646/2006; K. Anandan Nambiar v. Chief Secretary, State of Madras MANU/SC/0060/1965; Dill v. Murphy 1864 (15) ER 784; Fielding v. Thomas 1896 AC 600; Fenton v. Hampton (1858) 11 MOO PCC 347; Doyle v. Falconer (1865-67) LR 1 PC 328; Barton v. Taylor (1886) 11 App Cases 197 : 2 TLR 382; Marshall v. Gordon 243 U.S. 521 (1917); Anderson v. Dunn; Yeshwant Rao v. MP Legislative Assembly AIR 1967 MP 95; Hardwari Lal v. Election Commission of India etc. ILR (1977)2 P&H 269; Hartnett v. Crick (1908) AC 470; Earl of Shaftesbury 86 E.R. 792; Ashby v. White (1703-04) 92 E.R. 129 : (1704) 14 St Tr 695; R. v. Paty (1704) 92 E.R. 232; Murray case 95 E.R. 629; Brass Crosby case 95 E.R. 1005; Sir Francis Burdett case 104 E.R. 501; Howard v. Sir William Gosset 116 E.R. 139; Bradlaugh v. Gossett (1884)L. R. 12 QBD 271 : 50 LT 620 : 53 LJQB 200; P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) MANU/SC/0293/1998; New Brunswick Broadcasting Corporation v. Nova Scotia Speaker 1993 (1) SCR 391; Harvey v. New Brunswick 1996 (2) SCR 876; A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950 SCR 88; Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India MANU/SC/0011/1970; Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/1176/1997; D.T.C. case 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600; Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Attorney General of Hong Kong (1970) AC 1136 : (1970)2 WLR 1264; Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter MANU/SC/0061/1971; Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel MANU/SC/0373/1985; Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India MANU/SC/0157/1958; Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v. Whybrow & Co. (1910) 10 CLR 266; Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma MANU/SC/0215/1964; Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 1 All ER 208; S.E. Asia Fire Bricks v. Non-Metallic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees Union [1980] 2 All ER 689 (PC); Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy MANU/SC/0068/1970; State of Bihar v. Kameshwar MANU/SC/0020/1952; Smt. S. Ramaswami v. Union of India 1992 Suppl. (1) SCR 108; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0055/1982; Jatish Chandra Ghosh v. Hari Sadhan Mukherjee MANU/SC/0117/1961; K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P. MANU/SC/0343/1985; T. Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P. MANU/SC/0372/1985; Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board MANU/SC/0037/1966; Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal MANU/SC/0020/1968; S.R. Bommai v. Union of India MANU/SC/0444/1994; Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. WP (C) No. 287; Julion Bond v. James Sloppy Floyd 385 US 116 (1966) : 17 L Ed 2nd 235; Powell v. McCormack 395 US 486 (1969) : 23 L Ed 2nd 491; H. Snowden Marshall v. Robert B. Gordon 243 US 521 (1917); United States v. Daniel Brewster 408 US 501 : (1972) 33 L Ed 2nd 507; Speaker of the House of Assembly v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (1993) 1 SCR 319; Stockdale v. Hansard (1839) 9 Ad & E 1 : 112 ER 1112; Kielley v. Carson (1842), 4 MOO PC 63 : 13 ER 225; Fred Harvey v. Attorney General for New Brunswick (1996) 2 SCR 876; Commons v. Satnam Vaid (2005) 1 SCR 667; Edward Keilley v. William Carson (1842) : 4 MOO PC 63 : 13 ER 225; Beaumont v. Barrett (1836) 1 MOO PC 80; Thomas William Doyle v. George Charles Falconer (1866) LR 1 PC 328; Raj Narain v. Atmaram Govind and Anr. MANU/UP/0151/1954; Yeshwant Rao Meghawale v. Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Ors. MANU/MP/0025/1967; K. Anbazhagan and Ors. v. Secretary, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Madras and Ors. MANU/TN/0157/1988; Sheriff of Middlesex (1840) 11 Ad & E 273 : 113 ER 419; R. v. Her Majesty's Treasury, ex parte Smedley 1985 QB 657; Sambamurthy v. State of A.P. MANU/SC/0103/1987: AIR 1987 SC 663; Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain MANU/SC/0304/1975; Minerva Mills Ltd. V. Union of India MANU/SC/0075/1980; L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India MANU/SC/0851/1987; Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu and Ors. MANU/SC/0101/1993; Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. MANU/SC/0088/1974; Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Ors. 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India MANU/SC/0133/1978; State of Rajasthan v. Union of India MANU/SC/0370/1977; Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corporation MANU/SC/0584/2005; Providence Bank v. Alphens Billings 29 US 504 (1830) : 7 Law Ed 939; Mary Roy v. State of Kerala : MANU/SC/0390/1986; Clarke v. Bradlaugh 1881 (8) QBD 63; Chhabildas Mehta v. The Legislative Assembly, Gujarat State 1970 Guj.LR 729; M.P.V. Sundaramier & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0151/1958; Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam MANU/SC/0030/1960; Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0065/1962 Authorities Referred: "May's Parliamentary Practice", from page 183 in chapter 11;, 20th Edition, 17th ed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spotlaw 2014
    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Raja Ram Pal Vs. Speaker, Lok Sabha (C.K. Thakker J.) 10.01.2007 JUDGMENT C.K. THAKKER, J. I have had the benefit of reading the erudite judgment prepared by my Lord the Chief Justice. I am in agreement with the final order dismissing the petitions. Keeping in view, however, the issue in these matters which is indeed of great public importance having far- reaching consequences to one of the largest democracies of the world, I intend the consider it in detail. In these 11 petitions (9 by members of Lok Sabha and 2 by members of Rajya Sabha), the petitioners have challenged the proceedings initiated against them by Parliament, the reports submitted by the Committees constituted by Parliament holding them guilty of the charges levelled against them and notifications expelling them as members of Parliament. The 'unfortunate background' of the case has been dealt with by the learned Chief Justice and I do not intend to repeat it. Suffice it to say that it was alleged against the petitioners that they accepted money for tabling questions/raising issues in Parliament. Committees were appointed to inquire into the allegations and conduct of Hon'ble Members. The allegations were found to be correct and pursuant to the reports submitted by the Committees, the Members were expelled by Parliament. Those Members have challenged the impugned action of expulsion. The Court had been ably assisted by the learned counsel for the parties on the central question of Parliamentary privileges, the power of the House to deal with those privileges and the ambit and scope of judicial review in such matters.
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Repeals: Twentieth Report Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill
    2015: 50 years promoting law reform Statute Law Repeals: Twentieth Report Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill LC357 / SLC243 The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM No 357) (SCOT LAW COM No 243) STATUTE LAW REPEALS: TWENTIETH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers June 2015 Cm 9059 SG/2015/60 © Crown copyright 2015 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Print ISBN 9781474119337 Web ISBN 9781474119344 ID 20051507 05/15 49556 19585 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ii The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman Professor Elizabeth Cooke1 Stephen Lewis Professor David Ormerod QC Nicholas Paines QC. The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Elaine Lorimer. The Law Commission is located at 1st Floor, Tower, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AG The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Pentland, Chairman Caroline Drummond David Johnston QC Professor Hector L MacQueen Dr Andrew J M Steven The Chief Executive of the Scottish Law Commission is Malcolm McMillan.
    [Show full text]
  • Huguenot Merchants Settled in England 1644 Who Purchased Lincolnshire Estates in the 18Th Century, and Acquired Ayscough Estates by Marriage
    List of Parliamentary Families 51 Boucherett Origins: Huguenot merchants settled in England 1644 who purchased Lincolnshire estates in the 18th century, and acquired Ayscough estates by marriage. 1. Ayscough Boucherett – Great Grimsby 1796-1803 Seats: Stallingborough Hall, Lincolnshire (acq. by mar. c. 1700, sales from 1789, demolished first half 19th c.); Willingham Hall (House), Lincolnshire (acq. 18th c., built 1790, demolished c. 1962) Estates: Bateman 5834 (E) 7823; wealth in 1905 £38,500. Notes: Family extinct 1905 upon the death of Jessie Boucherett (in ODNB). BABINGTON Origins: Landowners at Bavington, Northumberland by 1274. William Babington had a spectacular legal career, Chief Justice of Common Pleas 1423-36. (Payling, Political Society in Lancastrian England, 36-39) Five MPs between 1399 and 1536, several kts of the shire. 1. Matthew Babington – Leicestershire 1660 2. Thomas Babington – Leicester 1685-87 1689-90 3. Philip Babington – Berwick-on-Tweed 1689-90 4. Thomas Babington – Leicester 1800-18 Seat: Rothley Temple (Temple Hall), Leicestershire (medieval, purch. c. 1550 and add. 1565, sold 1845, remod. later 19th c., hotel) Estates: Worth £2,000 pa in 1776. Notes: Four members of the family in ODNB. BACON [Frank] Bacon Origins: The first Bacon of note was son of a sheepreeve, although ancestors were recorded as early as 1286. He was a lawyer, MP 1542, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal 1558. Estates were purchased at the Dissolution. His brother was a London merchant. Eldest son created the first baronet 1611. Younger son Lord Chancellor 1618, created a viscount 1621. Eight further MPs in the 16th and 17th centuries, including kts of the shire for Norfolk and Suffolk.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Guide to Legal Citation, Third Edition
    AUSTRALIAN GUIDE TO LEGAL AUSTRALIAN CITATION AUST GUIDE TO LEGAL CITA AUSTRALIAN GUIDE TO TO LEGAL CITATION AUSTRALIAN GUIDE TO LEGALA CITUSTRATION ALIAN Third Edition GUIDE TO LEGAL CITATION AGLC3 - Front Cover 4 (MJ) - CS4.indd 1 21/04/2010 12:32:24 PM AUSTRALIAN GUIDE TO LEGAL CITATION Third Edition Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc in collaboration with Melbourne Journal of International Law Inc Melbourne 2010 Published and distributed by the Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc in collaboration with the Melbourne Journal of International Law Inc National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Australian guide to legal citation / Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc., Melbourne Journal of International Law Inc. 3rd ed. ISBN 9780646527390 (pbk.). Bibliography. Includes index. Citation of legal authorities - Australia - Handbooks, manuals, etc. Melbourne University Law Review Association Melbourne Journal of International Law 808.06634 First edition 1998 Second edition 2002 Third edition 2010 Reprinted 2010, 2011 (with minor corrections), 2012 (with minor corrections) Published by: Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc Reg No A0017345F · ABN 21 447 204 764 Melbourne University Law Review Telephone: (+61 3) 8344 6593 Melbourne Law School Facsimile: (+61 3) 9347 8087 The University of Melbourne Email: <[email protected]> Victoria 3010 Australia Internet: <http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/mulr> Melbourne Journal of International Law Inc Reg No A0046334D · ABN 86 930 725 641 Melbourne Journal of International Law Telephone: (+61 3) 8344 7913 Melbourne Law School Facsimile: (+61 3) 8344 9774 The University of Melbourne Email: <[email protected]> Victoria 3010 Australia Internet: <http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/mjil> © 2010 Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc and Melbourne Journal of International Law Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law Relating to Officers in the Army
    F .. ----·······-_-·--·------·--~ F· r· J-, Jf J3f f. i i ] udge ftdvooaie 9u,..L-l._ U.S. flnny. I · 1 ~-~P. ......~ THE LAW RELATING TO OFFICERS IN THE ARMY, q. 9l~.. THE LA "\V RELATING TO OFFICERS IN THE AR~IY. BY HARRIS PRENDERGAST, OF LINCOLN'S INN, ESQ., BARRISTER-AT-LAW. REVISE!) EPITION. LONDON: PARKER, FURNIV ALL, AND PARKER, MILITARY LIBRARY, WHITEHALL. MDCCCLV. LONDON': PRINTED BY GEORGE PHIPPS, RA..~ELJ.GH STREET, EATON SQUARE, PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION. THE preparation of the following Work was sug­ gested by my brother, Lieutenant William Grant Prendergast, of the 8th Bengal Cavalry*, Persian Interpreter on the Staff of Lord Gough, Commander­ in-chief in India ; and from the same quarter much valuable assistance was originally derived, both as to the selection of topics, and the mode of treating them. Without the help of such military guidance, a mere civilian would have laboured under great disadvantages; and the merit, if any, of the Work, is therefore attributable to my coadjutor alone. For the composition, however, I am alone responsible. Officers in the Army are subject to a variety of special laws and legal· principles, which deeply affect their professional and private rights; and it is hoped that a Work, which endeavours to develope these subjects in a connected and untechnical form, will not be deemed a superfluous contribution to military literature. With this view, the following pages are by no means so much addressed to lawyers, as to a class of readers whose opportunities of access to legal publications are necessarily very limited; and care has been taken, in all · cases of importance, to set • Now Brevet-1\lfaj~r, and Acting Brigadier on the frontier of the Punjab.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Division Ofth'e Emmy of Dorset, Methodically Digested And
    CIVIL D IVIS IO N OF TH'E (Em m of or e y D s t, ME T H O D I C LL Y D I EST E D A ND A R RA NG E D A G , comm ute mmor TH E CIVIL MINISTE RIAL OFFI CE RS, MAGISTRA TE S, AVD SUBO RD INATE O FFICE RS ; WITH A COMPLETE NOM N VILLAR I A UM, IN FOU R PA RTS A MST OP TBE COUNTY AND OTH E R BRIDGES ; TOGETBE R WITH TH E A NNUA L VALUE OF REA L PRO PE RT Y ; A MO UNT OF TH E ’ L ND . TAX OF TH E POO R S- RA TE A ND C U T A ; , O N Y RATE ; TH E POPULA IHION A ND TH E R U L E S A N D O R D E R S FOR REGULATION OF THE PRACTICE OF TH E Q UARTER SES‘H ONS . AND OTH E R MATTERS ; BSE R A WITH 3 3 mm AND O V TIONS THE REON. A LSC, “ ‘ A A P P E H N N D LX , OONTQINl‘G “ .“ A BSTRACTS TU RNS O F CH AR TABLE DO NAT O NS “ I I , 0 3 am mo TO TH E PRES ENT runs. an) : 5mm! mitten CORRE CTE D A U G M E N E D A ND I MPR O VE D . , T , D O BY E WARD SWELL . D umbest”: PRINTED AND PUBLIS ED BY WES O SIMO DS AND SYDENH A M.
    [Show full text]
  • Due Process As Separation of Powers
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL NATHAN S. CHAPMAN & MICHAEL W. MCCONNELL Due Process as Separation of Powers ABSTRACT. From its conceptual origin in Magna Charta, due process of law has required that government can deprive persons of rights only pursuant to a coordinated effort of separate institutions that make, execute, and adjudicate claims under the law. Originalist debates about whether the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments were understood to entail modern "substantive due process" have obscured the way that many American lawyers and courts understood due process to limit the legislature from the Revolutionary era through the Civil War. They understood due process to prohibit legislatures from directly depriving persons of rights, especially vested property rights, because it was a court's role to do so pursuant to established and general law. This principle was applied against insufficiently general and prospective legislative acts under a variety of state and federal constitutional provisions through the antebellum era. Contrary to the claims of some scholars, however, there was virtually no precedent before the Fourteenth Amendment for invalidating laws that restricted liberty or the use of property. Contemporary resorts to originalism to support modern substantive due process doctrines are therefore misplaced. Understanding due process as a particular instantiation of separation of powers does, however, shed new light on a number of key twentieth-century cases which have not been fully analyzed under the requirements of due process of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Manuscripts Collected by Thomas Birch (B. 1705, D. 1766)
    British Library: Western Manuscripts Manuscripts collected by Thomas Birch (b. 1705, d. 1766), D.D., and bequeathed by him to the British Museum, of which he was a Trustee from 1753 until his death ([1200-1799]) (Add MS 4101-4478) Table of Contents Manuscripts collected by Thomas Birch (b. 1705, d. 1766), D.D., and bequeathed by him to the British Museum, of which he was a Trustee from 1753 until his death ([1200–1799]) Key Details........................................................................................................................................ 1 Provenance........................................................................................................................................ 1 Add MS 4106–4107 TRANSCRIPTS OF STATE PAPERS and letters from public and private collections, made by or for Birch, together with.................................................................................... 8 Add MS 4109–4124 ANTHONY BACON TRANSCRIPTS.Transcripts and extracts of the correspondence of Anthony Bacon (d. 1601), chiefly in..................................................................................................... 19 Add MS 4128–4130 ESSEX (DEVEREUX) PAPERSTranscripts of original letters and papers in the British Museum, Lambeth Palace Library,............................................................................................. 32 Add MS 4133–4146 FORBES PAPERS. Vols. II–XV.4133–4146. Collections of Dr. Patrick Forbes, consisting of lists, copies, etc., of.......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • British East India Company
    British East India Company East India Company 1. (Historical Terms) the company chartered in 1600 by the British government to trade in the East Indies: after being driven out by the Dutch it developed trade with India until the Indian Mutiny (1857), when the Crown took over the administration: the company was dissolved in 1874 2. (Business / Commerce) any similar trading company, such as any of those founded by the Dutch, French, and Danes in the 17th and 18th centuries East India Company - an English company formed in 1600 to develop trade with the new British colonies in India and southeastern Asia; in the 18th century it assumed administrative control of Bengal, Formal inauguration of The Institution of Industrial Engineering & Technology (India) at Calcutta by His Excellency Lord Chelmsford, the Governor General of India Inauguration of the First Local Association, namely, the Association of Engineers East India. in December 22,1921 The British East India Company, sometimes referred to as "John Company," was a joint-stock company which was granted an English Royal Charter by Elizabeth on December 31, 1600, with the intention of favoring trade privileges in India. The Royal Charter effectively gave the newly created The Honourable Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies (HEIC) a 15 year monopoly on all trade in the East Indies. The Company transformed from a commercial trading venture to one which virtually ruled India as it acquired auxiliary governmental and military functions, until its dissolution in 1858. This followed the anti- British rebellion (or First War of Indian Independence), after which the British government decided that direct rule would be more appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright, Translations, and Relations Between Britain and India in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 82 Issue 3 Symposium: Intellectual Property, Trade and Development: Accommodating and Article 4 Reconciling Different National Levels of Protection June 2007 Copyright, Translations, and Relations between Britain and India in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries Lionel Bently Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lionel Bently, Copyright, Translations, and Relations between Britain and India in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, 82 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1181 (2007). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol82/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. COPYRIGHT, TRANSLATIONS, AND RELATIONS BETWEEN BRITAIN AND INDIA IN THE NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURIES LIONEL BENTLY* In 1914, the Government of India ("Gol") enacted a copyright law to vary the application of British imperial law to India. Among several varia- tions adopted, one related to translations. The 1911 British Imperial Act had conferred copyright protection for up to fifty years from the author's death, and included a right for that period to control the translation of the work.1 In contrast, section 4 of the
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Development of India
    Constitutional Development From 1773 to 1947 OBJECTIVE IAS www.objectiveias.in 1 British came to India as traders, and with the passage of time, they became its rulers. In 1600 AD, the British East India Company was granted a charter to trade in East. The company obtained exclusive right to trade with India for 15 years, and then renewed gradually. A series of acts, beginning from regulating act 1773, were passed to regulate the affairs of the company; renew its charters; provide for government in India; provide for civil and criminal laws and so. Thus, the constitutional history of India begins from the Regulating Act 1773. Regulating Act of 1773 was the first landmark in the constitutional development of India. Via this act, the British Parliament for the first time interfered into affairs of India. The Prime Minister of England at the time of Regulating Act of 1773 was Lord North. Administration of the Company at the time of the Regulating Act 1773 Administration of the East India Company in England was managed by a body of 24 directors called Court of Directors. This Court of Directors was elected by shareholders of the company on an annual basis. The collective body of these shareholders was called the Court of Proprietors. The day-to-day functioning of the East India Company was done by the committees of the Court of Directors. In India, three presidencies were established at Bombay, Madras and Kolkata under a President called Governor-General and his Council or Governor in- council. All the powers were lodged into the Governor-in-Council, and nothing could be transacted without the majority of the votes in the council.
    [Show full text]
  • Master Thesis
    i MASTER THESIS Titel der Master Thesis / Title of the Master’s Thesis „From Hastings to Macaulay: how the East India Company strategically created a legal order to consolidate power over the indigenous people of India 1765-1862 “ verfasst von / submitted by James Bergin angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Advanced International Studies (M.A.I.S.) Wien 2019 / Vienna 2019 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt A 992 940 Postgraduate programme code as it appears on the student record sheet: Universitätslehrgang lt. Studienblatt Internationale Studien / International Studies Postgraduate programme as it appears on the student record sheet: Betreut von / Supervisor: Professor Thomas Row ii iii Abstract This thesis examines how legal orders can be structured to serve power consolidation by analysing the case of the East India Company. Under Governor-general Warren Hastings the Company created the Adalat System in which courts operated by the Company administered Islamic and Hindu Law to these respective populations. It is submitted here that the Adalat System, rather than deriving from benevolence and respect for these communities, helped the Company achieve stability. The Adalat System then underwent a Universalist Shift. The Company backtracked from administering Islamic and Hindu law, often with a pretext of importing English-style legal reforms, from which they derived a moral justification for empire. The Indian Rebellion of 1857, which caused the dissolution of the Company, can be partially attributed to the encroachment on Indian social values and customs by legal means. This thesis reconfigures the development of the legal order as an inherently imperial process occurring across many different stages in which the Company´s priority was to consolidate power.
    [Show full text]