Part 4 - Calcutta High Court

Transcription

The High Court at Calcutta
Article 44 of the Constitution of India and its Anomalies
— Mr. Justice S. A. Masud (Retired) M.A., LL.B.
Barrister-at-Law
A
RTICLE 44 provides that "the State shall
endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform Civil
Code throughout the territory of India". It is included in
Part IV which consists of "Directive Principles of State
Policy", the nature of which is described in Article 37
which reads as follows:
"The provisions contained in this part shall not be enforceable by
any Court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless
fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the
duty of the State to apply these principles in making Law.”
Apart from a demand from a vocal section of the public,
the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ahmed Khan V. Shah Bano
Begum (AIR 1985 S.C. 945) has made the following
observations (at p. 954) which became controversial: "It is
also a matter of regret that Article 44 of our Constitution
has remained dead letter..... There is no evidence of any
official activity for framing a uniform Civil Code for the
country. A belief seems to have gained ground that it is
for the Muslim Community to take a lead in the matter of
reforms of their personal law. A Common Civil Code will
help the cause of National Integration by removing
disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting
ideologies. No Community is likely to bell the cat by
making gratuitious concessions on this issue. It is the
State which is charged with the duty of securing a
uniform Civil Code for the citizens of the country and
unquestionably it has the legislative competence to do
so... Inevitably, the role of the reformer has to be assumed
by the Courts because, it is beyond the endurance of
sensitive minds to allow injustice to be suffered when it is
so palpable." Such observations which are neither
necessary nor relevant for deciding the issue in a
particular case are often disapproved by eminent jurists
including the Supreme Court Judges. Justice Jaganmohan
Reddy of Supreme Court in his Book, "Social Justice and
the Constitution" (at p. 83) has stated: "A Judge should
not import his private notions of policy in the
Constitution. He should not be guided solely by his own
sense of justice or by his social sense or outlook... A too
active Judge is like a bull in a China shop creating
confusion in the minds of the legislators as well as of the
91
public." In this connection, the words of Justice
Frankfurter may be remembered: "It is hostile to a judicial
system to involve the judiciary in the politics of the
people". Mr. Justice Reddy has cautioned in the said book
(at p. 15): "But if any legislation is undertaken in the
furtherance of the Directive Principles, that legislation
should nevertheless conform to the other provisions of
the Constitution such as, for instance, the Fundamental
Rights under Part III of the Constitution... However some
persons, not excluding those of eminence while
describing them by cliches that Part IV was a charter of
Socio-economic Revolution, want them to be given effect
to by even overriding the Fundamental Rights or by
whittling them down in such a way as in effect to
completely abrogate them.”
Article 44 read with Article 37 does not necessarily enjoin
enactment of a Uniform Civil Code by the Parliament. A
reasonable construction would be to apply the Directive
Principles in Article 44 in the governance or
administration of the country through laws enacted by
Parliament, State legislatures or local authorities. In other
words, civil laws to be operative in India and the rights
and obligations flowing thereof must be uniformly
applicable to all citizens in consonance with Fundamental
Rights and Duties under the Constitution. Any other
interpretation would assume the addition to or inclusion
92
of the words "Notwithstanding other provisions of the
Constitution" in Article 44. It is a settled law that Article
44 cannot override Fundamental Rights available to all
sections of the Citizens of India. It is extremely dangerous
for a Court to champion the cause of a social and religious
reformer. Even an obiter dicta should not be made to
usurp the Constitutional role of the Parliament.
It may be relevant to refer to Krishna Singh V. Mathura Ahir
(AIR 1980 S.C. 707) where the Supreme Court has
observed (at 712): "In our opinion, the learned Judges
failed to appreciate that Part III of the Constitution does
not touch upon the personal law of the Parties. In
applying the personal laws of the Parties he could not
introduce his own concepts of modern times but should
have enforced the law as derived from recognized and
authoritative sources of Hindu law, that is, smritis and
commentaries referred to, as interpreted in the
Judgements of various High Courts except where such
law is altered by any usage or custom or is modified or
abrogated by Statute".
Another interesting situation has arisen. Although the
substantive decision of Shah Bano's case, that is to say, a
Muslim husband is liable to pay maintenance to his
divorced wife under Section 125 of Code of Criminal
Precedure, 1973, is superseded by the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the wishful
thinking of the Judges as expressed in the obiter dicta is
being implemented by the proposed Bill on Uniform
Civil Code, 1987, which is reported to be introduced this
year in Parliament. As the contents of the Bill are not
known to the public, any legal criticism of its provisions
at this stage is premature.
The next point which may be urged is the principle of
priority in selecting Article 44 in preference to other more
important Directive Principles of State Policy, such as,
Right to an adequate means to livelihood (Article 39[a]),
the ownership and control of the material resources of the
community to be distributed as best to subserve the
common good (Article 39[b]), free legal aid to ensure
justice to economically disabled victims (Article 39A),
Right to work, to education, to public assistance in cases
of unemployment, old age, sickness etc. (Article 41),
Right to a living wage for workers and peasants (Article
43) etc.
Another anomaly is the meaning of "Uniform Civil Code".
It has been understood as common Civil Code even by the
Supreme Court Judges in Shah Bano's Case. The word
"uniform" does not necessarily mean "common" or
"identical".
"Uniform" may also be understood as "of the same
pattern". Unlike law of Contract or Tort, which is based
on English law, existing personal laws in India of major
Communities are based on the religious text-books of
different faiths. Similarly, the term "Code" is also
ambiguous, It means collection of statute or laws on a
subject such as "Crime", "Procedure" etc. The Uniform
Civil Code Bill, 1987, is supposed to be a Code not in
respect of all civil laws, but in respect of marriage,
registration of marriage, divorce, maintenance, minority,
guardianship and succession. How can fundamentals of
these subjects and consequantial laws be uniformly
incorporated in one Code or enactment changing, lock,
stock and barrel of the existing laws, governing Hindus,
Muslims, Christians and Parsis ? To illustrate Copercenary, Pindas oblations, option of Puberty, Dowry,
Adoption etc. are different legal concepts and so are the
laws of inheritance which vary in as much as they
emanate from different sources.
Article 44 directs to have a uniform Civil Code. The word
"Civil" is not restricted to marriage, law of inheritance etc.,
only. There are large number of substantial civil laws
such as Indian Contract Act, Indian Partnership Act,
Indian Arbitration Act, Transfer of Property Act and
procedural laws, such as Civil Procedure Code, which
are uniformly applicable to all citizens of India. Thus
93
there are already uniform Civil Codes which are
prevailing in our country in respect of different subjects.
It is not, therefore, necessary to have a uniform or
Common law in respect of marriage, law of inheritance
etc., on the strength of a Directive policy under the
Constitution. If the ideal of equality and Secularism are
the objectives of the Government, was there any necessity
of rushing through Muslim Women (Protection of Rights
on Divorce) Act, 1986 ? It has been stated that there will
be provisions for options or exceptions in the Act, which
would satisfy the critics or sections of orthodox or
conservative people. That is another anomaly as to whose
option will bind the others. Father, son, husband or wife
may exercise options differently resulting in confusion
and contradictory legal consequences.
The Supreme Court echoed the noble feeling that
Parliament by passing a uniform Civil Code would
consolidate National Integration. On the contrary, it is
felt by large section of right-thinking persons that such
drastic change of status quo at this stage of education and
literacy ratio would be counter-productive. Repeal of
Portugese Civil Code in Goa, Daman and Diu, French
Civil Code in Pondichery, Shariat Act, 1937 in all parts of
India, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Succession Act,
1956, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956,
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Muslim
94
Women Act, 1986, Customary law prevailing in Jammu
and Kashmir, Nagaland, Kerala and Joint family system
would be necessary and Pandora's box will be opened to
the detriment of unity and integrity of the country.
The concept of unity in diversity is the glorious ethos of
Indian tradition. All rivers flow to the ocean but they do
not take the same route. The unifying principle in diverse
faiths in this plural society has to be appreciated and
maintained not by removing diversities but by respecting
and containing them.
Reference may be made to the view of Justice Tulzapurkar
as set out in his article on this subject in AIR 1987 Journal p.
17, where he has observed:
"A voluntary Civil Code is a contradiction in terms. The
moment it is made optional, it ceases to be uniform.”
There is logic in this statement but would this logic usher
forth National Integration in this country ? If the unity
and solidarity are to be achieved, the diversity should not
be crushed by the steam-roller of brute majority in
Parliament. The identity of socio-economic values
certainly strengthens the integration but merger of
emotive and religious values at the present stage of
history would provoke destabilizing forces in India. It is
relevant to refer to Article 25:
"25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and
propagation of religion.—(i) Subject to public order, morality
and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons
are equally entitled to freedom of conscience, and the right freely
to profess, practice and propagate religion."
Article 26 also provides for freedom to manage its own
affairs in matters of religion, subject to public order,
morality, and health. An anomalous result will follow if a
uniform Civil Code is passed, in as much as some of its
provisions would repeal laws based on religious text
books or customs. Reference may be made to Ameer Ali's
observation (at p. 530 in Vol. 2) in his book on
Mhammedan Law:
“TaIak to be the most detestable before the Almighty God of all
permitted things for it prevented conjugal happiness and
interfered with the proper bringing-up of children. The
permission, therefore, in the Koran, though it gave a certain
countenance to the old customs, has to be read with the light of
the Law-givers own words. When it is borne in mind how
intimately law and religion are connected in the Islamic system,
it will be easy to understand the bearing of the words on the
institution of divorce."
To obviate the difficulty, Justice Tulzapurkar has been
constrained to suggest amendment of Article 25 in
preference to modification of Article 44. In other words,
according to him a Fundamental Right under Part III of
the Constitution should be amended to accommodate
Directive policy under Part IV. Fundamental Right to
property under Article 19(f) has been deleted by the
Parliament by the Constitution (Fortyfourth
Amendment) Act, 1978. It is, therefore, for the politicians
to decide whether Fundamental Rights of a large section
of the people of India including Rights relating to the
minorities should be suitably curtailed. It is dangerous to
be lost in the wood to find out the trees.
There is a feeling that nothing should be done without a
national consensus. Attention may be drawn to the fact
that Article 44 was not originally contemplated by the
founding fathers of the Constitution. The concept come
up when Shri M. Masani suggested at the meeting of
Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee on March 28, 1942
the inclusion a provision for common Civil Code
applicable to all citizens. The suggestion was struck
down by a majority of 5 to 4. But the matter was again
referred to the said Committee which decided by a
slender majority to include a clause for uniform Civil
Code in Part IV, that is Directive Principles of State Policy.
Reference may also be made to the observations of Justice
H. R. Khanna of the Supreme Court in the case of St.
Xavier's College vrs..... State of Gujarat (AIR 1974 S.C 138 at
p. 1414) which are as follows:
95
"The Constitution-makers were conscious of the deep
attachment the vast masses of our country had towards religion,
the sway it had on their minds and the significant role it played
in their lives. To allay all apprehensions of interference by the
legislature and the executive in matters of religion the rights
mentioned in Articles 25 to 30 were made part of the
fundamental rights and religious freedom contained in those
Articles was guaranteed by the Constitution............special
rights for minorities were designed not to create inequality. The
principle which can be discerned in the various decisions of this
Court is that the catholic approach which led to the drafting of
the provisions relating to minority rights should not be set at
naught by narrow judicial interpretation..... The safeguarding
of the interest of the minorities among sections of population is
as important as the protection of the interest amongst
individuals who are below the age of majority or are otherwise
suffering from some kind of infirmity."
96
Finally under Article 246 read with Seventh Schedule,
List-III, Parliament has the legislative power to enact a
uniform Civil Code in respect of personal law of a citizen,
but in doing so the Union Government should give due
consideration to remove the anomalies as stated above.
There is great force in the logic for promulgation of a
uniform Civil Code in a Socialist Country in the
background of the modern world, but Parliament should
consider whether such a course would stabilize or
destabilize our country now. It may be remembered that,
in the words of Henry Sumner Maine, "Law is stable; the
Societies we are speaking of are progressive." John Stuart
Mill in his autobiography cautioned : "I am now
convinced that no great improvements in the lot of
mankind are possible until a great change takes place in
the fundamental constitution of their modes of thought.”
Courts and Judges of Olden Days (Pre-Mughal Period)
—Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. M. Yusuf, Calcutta High Court
T
HE period of permanently settled government in
India under the Muslims commenced from the Slave
Dynasty (1206 A.D.) and the administrative and judicial
machineries were set up for the better working of the
government. The noteworthy feature of the Muslim
sovereignty in India was that from the time of the Slave
rulers the Muslim potentates adopted India as their home
and abode, and Muslims became permanent inhabitants
of this great sub-continent. There were, no doubt, influx,
and efflux, but the influx was greater than the efflux.
"Dominion can subsist in spite of mischief but it cannot
endure with the existence of injustice" was the guiding
principle of the Muslim Rulers, and they always considered the maintenance of justice as their primary
responsibility. During the Sultanate period we find an
effective system of checks and balances by providing a
well-organised department of justice, dividing
responsibilities and powers among different officials and
making all proceedings of law Courts public.
The Supreme Authority in the Sultanat (kingdom) was
the Sultan. As Head of the State and Chief Enforcer of the
Law he exercised three major functions which touched
the judiciary in several ways. He was (i) the Defender of
the Faith and the Arbitrator in the disputes of his subjects;
(ii) the head of bureaucracy; and (iii) the Commander-inChief of the defence forces. In his first capacity he
dispensed justice through the Diwan-i-Qaza; in his
second capacity through the Diwan-i-Mazalim, and in his
third capacity he himself or through his military
commanders sat as Court-Marshal to try rebels,
prisoners-of-war and enemies of the State.
The Diwan-i-Qaza had jurisdiction over civil matters only.
The Qazi-ul-Quzat or the Chief Justice of the Sultanat
presided over this court. The Diwan-i-Mazalim was
generally presided over by the Sultan, who was assisted
by the Qazi-ul-Quzat. In the absence of the Sultan, the
Amir-i-Dad used to preside over this Court. The Chief
Hajib acted as the Clerk to the Crown. Sultan Muhammad
97
Bin Tughluq (1325-1351 A.D.) presided over this Diwan
twice a week—Mondays and Thursdays. Under the Lodis,
the vizir presided over this court and he was assisted by
the Qazi and a board of twelve jurists. Sometimes
Governors were also allowed to hold Mazalim-Courts
and they were assisted by the Qazi and the Sahib-i-Diwan.
The Diwan had two kinds of officers—Mutafahhis and
Muftis. The former inquired into facts and the latter gave
legal rulings. Besides, there were Amirs (executive
officers) and Mutasarrifs (clerks).
The Qazi-ul-Quzat or the Chief Justice was the titular
head of judiciary in the Sultanate and stood next to the
Sultan in judicial administration. His duties, as given in
Minhaj-us-Siraj’s Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, were judicial as well as
quasi-judicial, such as, decision of cases, grant of titles,
Imamat or leadership in prayer, censorship of morals and
supervision of educational establishments and law
officers of the State. He was required to administer oath of
office to the Sultan. One or two eminent Qazis were
appointed to his court as puisne judges to assist him in
discharging his duties. He was consulted when rules and
regulations for the Sultanate were framed, and was sent
on diplomatic missions abroad. In order of precedence
the Chief Justice held the first place next to the Sovereign.
98
The appointment of the Qazi-ul-Quzat was made by the
Sultan from "among the most virtuous of the learned men
in his kingdom" (vide Ziauddin Barani's Tarikh-i-Firuz
Shahi, p. 580). The appointment was for life with a salary
of 5,000 tankas a month.
The Amir-i-Dad was an important official and usually a
man of high rank and erudition was appointed to this post.
He had to hear complaints against the Governors and high
civil and military officers in the absence of the Sultan. In
the monarch's presence he was responsible for the
executive and administrative sides of the judiciary. It was
his responsibility to see that the Qazi's orders were carried
out. If he noticed that a miscarriage of justice had taken
place he could draw the attention of the Qazi to the same
and could stay the execution of the order passed by the
Qazi. The entire police administration was under his
control. He was paid a salary of about 4,000 tankas per
month.
Every town had a Qazi. His major functions, apart from
those of a judge, were execution of testamentary
dispositions; supervision of waqf estates; management of
the properties of orphans and lunatics; prevention of
encroachments on public thoroughfares; maintenance of
streets, helping destitute women; acting as Receiver of the
contested properties; and leading the Friday and 'Id
prayers. The Qazis were completely independent of the
Governors. A Qazi was paid 1,000 tankas a month.
Every cantonment or military area had a Qazi of its own,
known as Qazi-i-Askar or Qazi-i-Urdu (here Urdu means
lashkar or army). His jurisdiction was limited by the
boundaries within which the troops were stationed.
The law courts had Muftis employed by the State. They
were lawyers of eminence and were appointed to advise
and assist the Qazis. Whenever any difficulty arose on
any matter concerning law or legal procedure, the Mufti
was asked to expound the law or to point out the
procedure to be followed.
Sultan Iltutmish (1211-1236 A.D.) created the office of the
Muhtasib (Censor of Morals). Muhtasibs were in charge
of prosecution under the Canon Law. They occupied key
position in the judicial set-up as the defenders of public
decency and the protectors of the rights of the weak
against the strong.
The Kotwal had power to try petty criminal cases such as
those punishable under the present day Municipal Acts.
Their duties may be summarised under the following
heads—watch and ward of the town; care and legitimate
disposal of heirless properties; and regulations of
cemeteries, burial grounds and slaughter-houses. The
Kotwal's appointment was made on the recommendation
of Mir Atish.
Sher Shah (1540-1545 A.D.) created the posts of Munsifs
and Munsif-i-Munsifan for conducting civil
administration. Their duties were to watch the conduct of
Parganah officials, settle boundary disputes between
parties and to preserve the autonomy of village
community. Shiqdars and Shiqdar-i-Shiqdaran were
appointed for the administration of criminal justice.
The Sultanat (kingdom) was divided into Subahs
(provinces); Subahs in turn were composed of Sarkars
(districts) and Sarkars were sub-divided into Parganahs
or groups of villages. In villages the Panchayat system
was prevalent, and the Sultans did not break-up the
solidarity of the Village Community.
The administrative head of a Subah was the Nazim-iSubah (the Governor) and the maintenance of law and
order was in his personal charge. He was also the Chief
Judicial Officer in the provinces and had a department of
justice, Makhamah- i-Qaza, headed by a Chief Provincial
Qazi. The Governors had no power to inflict capital
punishment on prisoners-of-war and state-enemies.
99
The courts were guided by the following authorities in
deciding case: the Quran; the Sunnah or traditions;
concurrent opinion of the Prophet's Companions; Ijmaul-Ummat or consensus of opinion amongst the most
learned men of the Prophet's followers; and individual
judgment of Qazis in accordance to Istihsan (public good),
Istislah (public policy) and Istishah (concordance). The
Quran and the Sunnah were the usual-ul-usul or in the
words of Dr. Vesey-Fitzerald "the bases of the bases" for
judicial guidance.
In civil cases arising out of the personal law of the Hindus,
the law was explained by learned Brahmins known as
Pandits. The status of a Pandit was the same as that of a
Mufti. The system of appointing Pandits was introduced
by Iltutmish on the Abbaside model. The non-Muslims
were allowed to be governed by their own laws and the
rulers did not interfere with their religious belief and
customs.
The laws that were promulgated were not codified in the
modern sense of the term but were contained in official
manuals and in the edicts issued by the Sultans. They
could be classified under several heads: the Canon Law
(Ankam-i-Shariyah); the Common Law; Qanun-i-Shahi
(royal proclamations); Qanun-i-Urf (laws having their
origin in local customs) ; precedents established by other
Courts; and equity and good conscience.
100
The Sultans of Delhi, in general, were strict adherents of
the law and looked upon the dispensation of justice as a
sacred trust. Qutbud-Din-Aibak (1206-1211 A.D.) left a
"permanent reputation" and "his kingdom was governed
by the best laws" (vide Elphinstone's 'History of India', p.
363 and Briggss' 'Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India',
Vol. 1, p. 199). Iltutmish started the practice of hanging a
chain of justice outside his palace and of going about
incognito in order to find out if justice was administered
satisfactorily (vide Lee's Tr. of the Rehla, p. 112). His reign
was also noted for jurists well versed in law. Balban (12661287 A.D.) inflicted extreme penalty on a Governor who
was guilty of committing a murder.
Ibn Batuta mentions that Muhammad Bin Tughluq, the
most misunderstood of all the Sultans of Delhi, showed
great humility and respect for the law. According to
Barani, once a case was instituted against Sultan
Muhammad by one of his subjects in the Qazi's court. 'His
Majesty' appeared before the Qazi as a defendant and
saluted the Court with great respect. He was unarmed and
unguarded. The case was decreed in favour of the plaintiff
and the Sultan had to pay at once the compensation in
accordance with the order of the Court. The pages of
history preserve several instances of legal actions against
this Sultan when he stood as a defendant and paid the
penalties in most of the cases (vide the 'Tuhafr-un-nuzzar
fi gharib-il-amsar wa ajaib-il-astat' Cairo edition' pp. 285286). Once Muhammad Tughluq was called 'tyrant' by
Mullah Shaikh Shihabud-Din in the presence of the Qaziul-Quzat Kamalud-Din Sadri-Jahan. The Sultan flung his
sword before the Qazi saying: ''Prove me a tyrant as this
man says and cut off my head with this sword" (vide
Mahdi Husain's Tr. of the Rehla, p. xxi). In appointing Ibn
Batuta as a Qazi of the Qazi-ul-Quzatt's Bench the same
monarch said: "Do not suppose that your office of Judge of
Delhi will cost little trouble. On the contrary it requires
the greatest attention" (vide Lee's Travel, p. 148). Sultan
Firuz Shah Tughluq (1351-1388 A.D.) never hesitated to
execute one of his most favourite friends, who was also a
high State official, when murder charge was proved
against him.
There is no denying that the judicial system under them
had its merits as well as demerits. The administrative
machinery functioning in the reign of one monarch was
not necessarily the same in the reign of others; there were
some changes every time. But in spite of the vagaries of
personal despotism, the judiciary maintained its position
and there are innumerable instances of the potentates'
habits of showing respect to the law and of their
tendencies to supervise and criticise the work of the
judicial functionaries.
Sher Shah considered justice as the most excellent of
religious rites; and it was said by him that it would be his
greatest care not to violate it either by oppressing the
weak or permitting the strong to infringe the laws with
impunity. Roughly speaking there were 5,000 Qazis and
90 Chief Qazis under Sher Shah, and his expenditure on
N.B. : My article on the judiciary under the Mughal rule in
India under the caption "Courts and Judges of
Olden Days" was published in "The High Court at
Calcutta, Centenary Souvenir" in 1962. The present
article deals with the pre-Mughal period i.e. the
Sultanate Period (also known as the Pathan period).
judiciary amounted to over six crore tankas annually
(vide P. Saran's 'Studies in Medieval Indian History',
p. 99).
101
‘Social Justice’ : Widening the Jural Horizon
—Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee
Senior Advocate
O
ne of the remarkable events of the modern era in the
legal world is the judicial innovation for doing
justice to one at the instance of another. This class of
litigations has the new nomenclature of 'Public Interest
Litigation' and the philosophy behind it is the concept of
'Social Justice'. The institution of law being after all a
human institution, it cannot ignore social inequities and
problems arising therefrom, and more so in a democratic
set up. This has been recognised in our Constitution in its
preamble assuring 'Justice, social, economic and political'.
It is somewhat a new idea from the view-point of
orthodox Anglo-Saxon legal traditions, which though
striving to maintain the 'Rule of Law' and 'Justice in
accordance with law'— was failing to deliver what a
changing society was expecting of it, for reasons of the red
tape of procedural law; and for the same reason of
procedural bondage the post independence judiciary in
India had to struggle hard for more than thirty years to
break the shackle of procedural conventions for
implementing the real message of our Constitution
102
procalaimed in the Preamble and Part IV thereto, and to
declare solemnly that form cannot control the substance,
that procedure cannot forestal justice, and that in cases of
sufferings and distress of the weaker section of the society,
or of those who are unable to move the court of law for
justice, any one or more, not having any personal interest
in the list, can invoke the jurisdiction of the Writ Court. In
the case of S. P. Gupta Vs. Union of India [(1981) Supp. SCC.
87] popularly known as Judges' Transfer case, the
Supreme Court entertained Writ application of
petitioners who moved it for the benefit of some others
who were not directly before the Court. In another case of
its type, Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India [(1984)3
SCC. 161], the Supreme Court made a point on the
language of Art. 32 to contend that it does not indicate
who alone is to move the Court to invoke its jurisdiction
and concluded that any citizen can do it. This was an
application filed by an organisation dedicated to the
cause of releasing bonded labourers from their serfdom.
To focus the denial of social justice to the bonded
labourers, P. N. Bhagwati J. quoted Rabindranath Tagore
from his 'Kadi O Komal' as follows:
“Into the mouth of those
Dumb, pale and meak
We have to infuse the language of the Soul;
Into the heart of those
Weary and Worn, dry and Forlorn
We have to minstrel the language of humanity"
In that decision the Supreme Court quoted with approval
the following lines from “Law in the Modern Stair" by Leon
Duggit:
“Any system of public law can be vital only so far
as it is based on a given sanction to the following rules:
First, the holders of power cannot do certain things ;
second, there are certain things they must do".
There Lordship observed that it is only recently that the
second part of the above rule has substantially engaged
the functional attention of the judicial administration.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Olga
Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation [(1985) 3 SCC. 545]
projected the concept of social duty a step further and
enjoined that men in the upper class of the society can ill
afford to remain indifferent to the continued inhuman
sufferings of the men in the financially weaker class for
long, or otherwise the very foundation of our democratic
institutions may be shaken.
Public Interest Litigation has already started
occupying the legal field. Our High Court has already
interfered in a large number of such cases in its Writ
Jurisdiction. The latest of its type is an application filed by
some advocates drawing the attention of the Court to
Arsenic poisoning of Tube-well water in some rural areas
posing a hazard to public health; the High Court issued
mandatory orders for sealing off those Tube-wells and
also for supplying fresh drinking water in the affected
areas.
The concept of Social Justice is nothing new to
traditional social ideals in India, where the basic idea of
justice is related to 'Sadachar or social norms which everyone is expected to follow'. In India, Kings and Courts had
not ever much to influence the day to day life of the
common man who were guided only by their innate sense
of justice and respect for unwritten rules of fairplay in
community living, which did not depend on
administration for their observance. Justice according to
age-old Indian concept has always been social justice.
103
Justice indeed is divine. To quote Rabindranath Tagore:
Fountain of Justice
Thou art. Thy Mace
Thou invest every
Mortal with; true
A task hard. Aware,
Know thy glory, Do
Not fear.
Hesitate
Not, and stoic as
Thou art, may I act
Where mercy fails;
Truth as sword do
Adorn my say just
Pierce the wrong and
who brooks wrong.*
*Translated from original Bengali in Naivedya
104
Bygone Days of Old Court House Street
—P. Thankappan Nair
O
LD Court House Street, or Lal-dighy-ka-poorab
rastha, recalled the days of two citadels of Justice in
Old Calcutta, viz., Mayor's Court and Supreme Court,
besides stirring events such as sack of Calcutta by Sirajud-Daulah in 1756, hanging of Maharajah Nanda Kumar,
and storming of the Writers' Buildings by Benoy-BadalDinesh trio. The City Fathers renamed the Old Court
House Street quite oblivious of the fact that they have
erased their own early history, for didn't the Mayor and
Aldermen administer Justice and civic affairs from 1726 to
1774 from the Court House which was situated in this
very street? Old Court House is gone; so is the street
named after it, leaving its associations with the history of
Judiciary in British India. Let us take a stroll through
some of the Calcutta streets1 to ascertain if there is
sufficient material in their names to trace the early history
of the High Court, which celebrates its 125th birthday on
July 1, 1987.
The Calcutta High Court has inherited the traditions of
four courts, two of which belonged to the Crown and the
other two to the John Company. The (1) Mayor's Court
(1726-1774), (2) Supreme Court (1774-1862), (3) Sadar
Dewani Adalat (1780-1862) and (4) Sadar Nieamat Adalat
(1780-1862) were the highest courts in the Presidency of
Bengal. The High Court was established by Letters Patent
by the amalgamation of the last three courts.
MAYOR'S COURT
Old Mayor's Court, a street so called in Sova Bazar, North
Calcutta, is no doubt a misnomer,2 but it is good that there
is such a street to recall the first King's Court ever
instituted in Charnock's City which then was confined to
the Tank Square (modern Dalhousie Square — renamed
Benoy-Badal-Dinesh Bag). The Mahratta Ditch and the
present Fort William were not in existence then. The
Mayor and Aldermen derived their power from the
Charter of King George I dated 24th September 1726.3
105
The first Mayor of Caleutta was Charles Hampton4 and
the first Sheriff, Thomas Braddyll. Though the first
Mayor was nominated by the King, he was elected by the
Aldermen on the 20th of December from 1728 to 1773.
The Sheriff continues to be appointed on the same day
annually since 1728. The Mayor's Court was a Court of
Record. The Governor or President of Fort William and
five Senior Members of the Council were appointed by
the Charter to be Justices of the Peace. These John
Company's merchants were empowered to hold Quarter
Sessions for the trial of all offences, except high treason.
The monthly expenses of the Mayor's Court in 1753 were:
Interpreter Rs. 20; 2 native Court Sergeants Rs. 10 each;
wax candles for 6 months Rs. 10; a Brahmin Rs. 3-4-0; a
Harry (sweeper), Re 1/-.5 The annual income of the Court
was about Rs. 1,600/- as there was a duty of 9 annas on
law-suits per folio page. The total expenditure of the
Mayor's Court for six months (October 1754-March 1755)
was:6
For Chubdars and 9 peons, as per month
..
..
Rs. 35-0-0
For palankin, 6 months ..
..
..
..
.. Rs. 200-0-0
Paid the Trustees of the Charity for apartments for the
Records, for 6 months
..
..
..
.. Rs. 198-0-0
Clerk of the Peace, monthly ..
..
..
..
Rs. 46-0-0
Nine Justices ..
..
..
..
..
..
Rs. 46-0-0
Interpreter
..
..
..
..
..
..
Rs. 60-0-0
106
Sheriff ..
..
..
..
30 seer wax candles for 15 sittings
Batta ..
..
..
..
Stationery
..
..
..
Tom-Tom
..
..
..
Total expenditure for six months
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
.. Rs. 162-0-0
..
Rs. 45-0-0
..
Rs. 3-9-6
.. Rs. 200-0-0
..
Rs. 1-1-0
.. Rs. 2,371-0-3
The Mayor's Court was debarred from taking cognizance
of disputes between natives from 1755 though the Court
probably determined suits between them who submitted
to its jurisdiction. The Zemindar or Collector of Calcutta—
a Covenanted Civil Servant of the East India Company and
who was the youngest of the Council of Fort William—was
the functionary who adjudicated upon the disputes
between natives living within the Company's jurisdiction.
He had his own Cutchery and was assisted by a native who
was nicknamed Black Zemindar.
Though the Mayor and Aldermen were the Covenanted
Civil Servants of the East India Company, they became
independent of the control of the President or Governor of
Fort William once they assumed their judicial office. The
Mayor and Aldermen held their court with strict
decorum; the Mayor sitting on his chair cushioned with
velvet and the Aldermen donning their red taffety
gowns.7
8
The Ambassador's House which was appropriated for the
Mayor's Court from 1728 to 1731 belonged to the East
India Company and stood at the corner of Lall Bazar and
Mission Row, the site of which is now occupied by Martin
Burn & Company's office building. The Persian
Ambassador, on his way to the Mogul Court, reached
Calcutta on 1st September 1712 and left for Hooghly only
on 18th November of that year. As this was the house
prepared for this diplomat, it was called Ambassador's
House.9 The house was very extensive, possibly
beginning from the corner of Bentinck Street and ending
up at Mission Row, as it was sold by auction on 16th
September 1731 for Rs. 3,560, “reserving out of it a large
piece of ground with pucca buildings for a town gaol".10
Earlier, on October 10, 1726, the godowns attached to this
house were ordered to be thoroughly repaired.11
The Mayor's Court moved to the premises of the Charity
School12 in 1731. This two-storeyed building occupied the
site of St. Andrew's Church (Scotch Kirk) by the side of
Writers’ Buildings. The Charity School building was
called Court House from the occupation of a portion of it
by the Mayor's Court. The Court House was also used for
public entertainments ("assembly rooms"), besides
serving as a Town Hall. The Select Vestry of St. John's let
out a portion of the old Charity School to the Company
for holding the Mayor's Court at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/which gradually was raised to Rs. 800/- per month by
1780. "In 1762 the Court House was greatly enlarged by
the addition of verandahs twenty-five feet broad to both
floors on the south, an additional saloon with a room at
each end arches opening all around, a dancing-saloon ‘in
order that it might be used as an exchange, post-office,
quarter-sessions office, public entertainments and
assembly rooms', and the rent which at this time was two
thousand rupees a year proportionately increased. It
continued to increase from time to time till, in 1778, it
rose to eight hundred sicca rupees a month".13 The
Mayor's Court was abolished in 1774. The building was
pulled down in October 1792 as it had become insecure;
the ground was levelled by 15th March 1793. The
expenditure incurred for both the operations amounted
to Rs. 5,776-10-0.14 The ground remained vacant till it was
given free over to the Scottish Congregation for building
their church. The foundation of St. Andrew's was laid on
30th November 1815 and the church was consecreated on
8th March 1818.15
Old Court House Street recalled the days of the Mayor's
Court and the turbulent days of the Supreme Court,
which sat in the Old Court House from 1774 to 1782. The
historic building saw the Court condemning Maharajah
Nanda Kumar to hanging and James Augustus Hickey
being thrown into the country jail for publishing a libel in
his Bengal Gazette. Old Court House Street has been
recently renamed after Hemanta Kumar Basu, Forward
107
Bloc Leader (Hemanta Basu Sarani), but Old Court House
Corner, a small street by the side of St. Andrew's still
recalls the days of Mayor's Court and the early days of the
Supreme Court.16
SUPREME COURT
Philip Dormer Stanhope, who belonged to the First
Regiment of Dragoon Guards, was in Calcutta in 1774, in
search of better prospects. He writes in his Genuine
Memoirs of Asiaticus (London, 1784): “.....I see little
prospect of succeeding here, as the numerous dependants,
which have arrived in the train of the Judges, and of the
new Commander in Chief of the Forces, will of course be
appointed to all the posts of any emolument; and I must
do those gentlemen the justice to observe, that, both in
number and rapacity, they exactly resemble an army of
locusts sent to devour the fruits of the earth.
"The inhabitants of Calcutta seem to be not a little
displeased at the new form of government, which the
Judges, or, as they call themselves, the Supreme Court of
Judicature, in Bengal have already begun to introduce.
The Mayor's Court is abolished, and the same legal
process which is used at Westminster now prevails. The
Attornies, who have followed the Judges in search of prey,
108
as the carrion crows do an Indian army on its march, are
extremely successful in supporting the spirit of litigation
among the natives, who, like children, delighted with a
new play-thing are highly pleased with the opportunity of
harassing one another by Vexatious suits; and those pests
of society, called bailiffs, a set of miscreants little known in
India, are now to be seen in every street, watching for the
unhappy victims devoted to legal persecution ....”17
The newly appointed Judges of the Supreme Court— Sir
Elijah Impey (Chief Justice), Robert Chambers, Stephen
Caesar Le Maistre and John Hyde (Puisnes)— reached
Calcutta on October 19, 1774 and took their seats on the
Bench on October 22. The Supreme Court Judges found
the accommodation in the Old Court House insufficient
for their various offices. Sir Elijah Impey asked for a
building containing 21 rooms for the Court.18 Warren
Hastings, Governor-General, and his Council, rented the
house of Archibald Keir, at Esplanade West,19 at Rs. 2,500
per month for the Court. Necessary additions and
alterations were made and the Supreme Court moved to
its new abode on January 2, 1782. William Hickey, who
practised as an attorney at the Supreme Court, found this
as a "noble pile of buildings close to the edge of the river at
Chandpaul Ghaut”.20
W. H. Carey in his 'Good Old Days of John Company' has
given the following description of the Supreme Court
building:21 “For the high purposes of the highest court of
justice there was not perhaps in the whole town of
Calcutta a meaner building externally than this was.
Nothing was visible but the venetianed verandah which
ran along the entire front of the erection. The interior,
however, made amends for the external insignificance.
There was a spacious court fitted up much after the
fashion of courts of law in Westminster Hall, the Old
Bailey, & c., an extensive Grand Jury Room, decorated
with statues and pictures of bygone judges of any
eminence; rooms for the petty jury, chambers for the
judges, offices for the clerk of the crown, the registrar,
master in equity, etc., an insolvent court, sheriff's office
and a library for the use of the bar. “Keir's house was
purchased by the Government in 1801 for Rs. 80,000.22 The
Supreme Court sat in this house till 1862.
The High Court buildings occupy the site of the Old
Supreme Court House which stood upon the western
portion only, in addition to the sites of three other houses
that belonged to (1) Longueville Clarke, (2) William
Macpherson and (3) Sir James William Colvile.23
King's Bench Walk, which recalled its association with the
Old Supreme Court, has been swept away by the laying
out of the Eden Gardens. The Calcutta Advertiser (1787-
1793), a weekly that contained advertisements only and
distributed free by the proprietors of the Calcutta Gazette,
had its office at 3 King's Bench Walk24.
SADAR COURTS
Sudder Street recalls the days of the Sadar Dewani Adalat
and Sadar Nizamat Adalat, highest of courts established
by the East India Company. Originally called Ford
Street,25 it was renamed Speke Street when Peter Speke,
the First Judge of the Sadar Dewani Adalat, lived in a
house in the centre of the Indian Museum compound.
Peter Speke presided over the Sadar Dewani Adalat from
September 1789 to October 1802 when he was a member
of the Supreme Council. The Sadar Courts were shifted to
a fine pile "with a colonnaded frontage, and of great
length", next to the Presidency General Hospital.26 This
building, still intact, was built for a hospital for the sick of
the Regiment in the Fort, and was most admirably
planned for that purpose; but, soon as it was completed,
Lord William Bentinck appropriated it for the Sadar
Court. After the abolition of the Sadar Dewani Adalat, the
building was restored to its original use.
Korabardar Lane which takes off from 19 Free School
Street (renamed Mirza Ghalib Street) recalls the days of
that functionary who applied the Kora (whip) mercilessly
109
on the culprits according to the Muslim Law, under the
orders of the Sadar Nizamat Adalat, the highest court of
criminal appeal, established by the Company.27
JUDGES HONOURED
Judges, officials and legal practitioners connected with
the various courts in Calcutta are commemorated with
street names. Except for Muktaram Dey, who was Dewan
(Cashier) of the Mayor's Court, we do not know if
anybody else has been honoured with street names in
Calcutta who belonged to that court. Muktaram Baboo's
Street is marked out in Wood's Map of Calcutta, published
in 1784. He has lent his name to three Lanes, though he has
been deprived of his Row recently. Muktaram Babu's
descendants still live in this street.28
Some of the Judges of the Old Supreme Court are
commemorated by street names in the Park Street area.
Park Street itself derives its name from Sir Elijah Impey's
deer park,29 which was situated on the lawns of the Loreto
Convent in Middleton Row. Sir John Royds, puisne Judge
of the Old Supreme Court from 1787 to 1816, lived in a
house, the site of which is now occupied by Doveton
College. He died on 24th September 1817 and lies buried
in the South Park Street cemetery.30 Royd Street recalls Sir
John Royd’s association with Calcutta.
110
Sir William Jones, who was a puisne Judge of the Old
Supreme Court, has been honoured with a street name
from April 16, 1982. Middleton Row has been renamed
after Sir William as Sir William Jones Sarani. Sir William
founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal which has its abode
in Park Street since 1808.31
Sir Henry Russell32 (puisne Judge, 1797; Chief Justice,
1808-1813) has been deprived of his two streets on 16th
April 1982 and June 29, 1982 by renaming Russel Street
after Anandilal Poddar and Little Russel Street after
Nandalal Bose. Sir Henry lived at 12 & 13 Russel Street, the
site of which is now occupied by the Royal Calcutta Turf
Club.
Judges of the Sadar Courts are no longer commemorated
in Calcutta Streets. Peter Speke gave room for Sudder
Street and so has John Herbert Harington (Second Judge.,
1801-1811; First Judge, 1811-1819 & 1824-1825) to Ho-ChiMinh, Harington Street was renamed Ho-Chi-Minh
Sarani on October 13, 1969.
Though no Chief Justice of the High Court is
commemorated by a street name in Calcutta, the
following jurists who acted or officiated in that capacity,
have streets named after them: Sir Arthur George
Macpherson (Macpherson Square), Sir Romesh Chunder
Mitter (Romesh Mitter Row), Sir Chunder Madhab Ghose
(Justice Chandra Madhab Road), Sir Asutosh Mookerjee
(Asutosh Mukherjee Road) and Manmatha Nath
Mukherji (Justice Manmathe Mukherjee Row). Except for
Justice Sir John Budd Phear (Phear's Lane), we do not
think there is any other Englishman who is
commemorated by a street name from among the puisne
Judge of the High Court. Justices Sumboo Nath Pundit
(Sambhu Nath Pandit Street), Dwarka Nath Mitter
(Justice Dwarka Nath Road & D. N. Mitra Square),
Onookool Chunder Mookerjee (Onookool Mukherjee
Road), Gooroo Das Banerji (Sir Gurudas Road), Amir Ali
(Syed Ameer Ali Avenue), Saroda Charan Mitra (Justice
Sarada Mitter Street), Ashutosh Chaudhuri (Ashutosh
Chowdhury Avenue) and Syed Shamsul Huda (Shamsul
Huda Road) are celebrities in Calcutta streets.
Calcutta had 2,027 streets (designated by no less than 31
nomenclature) till the end of 1983. The inclusion of the
former municipalities of Jadavpur, South Suburbs
(Behala), and Garden Reach has swelled the list of streets
to more than 2,500. No less than sixty per cent of these
streets are now named after individuals. Persons
belonging to the legal profession have claimed no less
than 250 of them as they have distinguished themselves in
other fields as well. Every second street in Bhowanipore
(which has produced three generations of Chief Justices
for the Calcutta High Court) is named after a legal
luminary. It is not profitable to list their names here. In
conclusion, we recall the streets named after Lord
Satyendra Prasanna Sinha (Lord Sinha Road) and
Prasanna Kumar Tagore (Prasanna Kumar Tagore Street).
Lord Sinha has found no compeer and Prasanna Kumar
Tagore’s service to legal education will never be outdone.
Tagore Law Lecturership is the highest recognition of
jurisprudence.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1.
See author's A History of Calcutta's Streets, Calcutta, 1986, for full
details.
2.
Author's A History of Calcutta's Streets, pp. 644-645.
3.
An abridged Mayor's Court Charter of 1726 is printed in E. C.
Ormond's Rules of the Calcutta High Court (1914), Original Side,
4th edition, Calcutta, 1940, pp. 1-24.
4.
Nominees mentioned in Para 25 of the Charter of 1726 were
substituted by local candidates (Fort William Consultation of
Monday, 28th August 1727).
5.
Long, Rev. James, Selections from Unpublished Records of
Government for the years 1748 to 1769, Calcutta, 1869, No, 113 and
notes.
6.
Long, op. cit., Selection No. 148.
7. This inference is based on the expenditure statement of the
Mayor's Court in 1753 (Long, op. cit., Selection No. 113).
111
8. Wilson, C. R., Old Fort William in Bengal, London, 1906, vol. I, p.
119 and note.
18. Bengal Past & Present, vol XXX. (October-December 1925), pp.
150-198 for Cotton's 'Memoirs of the Supreme Court, 1774-1862’.
9.
19. Esplanade was not divided into East and West till the
construction of the Government House in 1805.
Wilson, C. R., The Early Annals of the English in Bengal, London,
1901, vol II, part I, pp. xxxii, 75-77, 79, 91, 116, 123, 146. The house
in 1712 was rented, but subsequently the Company purchased
it.
10. Wilson, Old Fort William, vol. I, pp. 135-136.
21. Vol. II, Cambray’s edition, Calcutta, 1907, p. 152.
1 1. Wilson, Old Fort William, vol. I, p. 119.
22. Bengal Past & Present, vol. XXX, p. 154, note 7.
12. The Charity School was built from "Legacies, Benefactions, and
Subscriptions" which amounted to Rs. 23,709-2-3 at the end of
December 1728 (Wilson. Old Fort William, vol. I, pp. 152-153).
23. H.E.A. Cotton, Calcutta Old & New, 1907, p. 697,
13. Author's History of Calcutta's Streets, pp. 407-408 and
K. Blechynden's Calcutta Past & Present, 1905, pp. 85-86.
14. Fort William India House Correspondence (vol. XI, edited by I. B.
Banerjee, Delhi, 1974, p. 570 and -do- vol. XII, edited by Amales
Tripathi, Delhi, 1978, p. 251). The expenditure of Rs. 5,77-10-0)
included the cost of filling up of a stretch of land, 201 ft. 6 inches
long, 13 ft. deep and 60 ft. broad, between the old Mint (presently
Stationery Office in Church Lane) and the River.
15. W. Newman & Co.’s Handbook to Calcutta, 1875, pp. 128-132 for
details.
16. Old Court House Street, Old Court House Lane and Old Court
House Corner are listed in old Calcutta street directories up to
1936. Old Court House Lane was swept off by the construction
of the Brabourne Road.
17. Reproduced in the author's Calcutta in the 18th Century, pp. 167179.
112
20. Memoirs of William Hickey (Alfred Spencer's edition), vol. III
London, 1917, p. 144.
24. Author's A History of the Calcutta Press, 1987, p. 175.
25. Author's History of Calcutta's Streets, pp. 862-864.
26. Carey, op. cit., vol. II, p. 153.
27. Author's History of Calcutta's Streets, pp. 495-496. Koraburdar
Lane is mentioned in the Corporation's records from 1876.
28. Muktaram Baboo was not the Dewan of the Supreme Court as his
street is mentioned in Wood's Map of Calcutta (1784). The family
residence, still intact, is at 159 Muktaram Babu Street. Brajalal
Dey, the present head of Muktaram Baboon’s family, confirmed
it.
29. Rev. James Long ‘Calcutta in the Olden Times—its Localities’,
Calcutta Review, vol. XVIII, No. 36—1862 p. 288) has stated that
Sir Elijah's park stretched up to Chowringhee.
30. Holmes & Co.’s Bengal Obituary, Calcutta, 1848, P. 161.
31. The Asiatic Society, 190th anniversary souvenir, 1974, p. 2.
32. Correct spellings from High Court Centenary Souvenir and names
from Corporation’s records. Biographical sketches of Judges are
given in author's History of Calcutta's Streets.
Law Reporting
— Jnanendra Nath Baksi, M.A., B.L.
(Advocate)
I
N the Anglo-American system of judicial
dispensation which we are following, previous
judgment or precedent has a binding effect on the
deliberations of judges, although the principles of law are
not lost sight of. For some years eminent Judges of
England have been pointing out the undesirability of too
much emphasis on precedent which is generally defended
on the ground of certainty. But this rigid doctrine runs
counter to and has adverse effect on the scientific
development of law. The rigid adherence to precedent
may lead to injustice and would unduly restrict the proper
development of law. Under Article 137 of the Constitution
of India the Supreme Court can review its own judgment
and, certainly, is not bound by the decisions of the Privy
Council and the Federal Court. The decision of a Bench of
the High Court or of the Supreme Court may be
superseded, respectively, by a larger Bench of the High
Court or the Supreme Court.
The decisions of the Courts have opened up a new horizon
in the formulation and exposition of law, called "Judgemade Laws". In the plethora of enacted laws "Judge-made
Laws” occupy a very significant place. It was felt that the
decisions of Their Lordships should not find their resting
place in the archives of the Courts, but may be made
available to the lawyers and the Judges for reference and
guidance. Accordingly, reporting of decisions of Courts
was felt a necessity.
It was Mr. Justice John Hyde, a Judge of the Supreme
Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, who held
office between 1774 and 1796, began writing Notes of cases
decided by him and his brother Judges, but writing the
whole of the judgment was not contemplated. These
Notes contain rough and fair notes disclosing historical
and legal information. They contain some of the historical
Judgments including the trial of Maharaja Nand Coomar
and are known as Hyde's Notes. In writing such Notes
Justice Hyde, sometimes, gave historical and geographical
position of Calcutta, its suburbs and, further, disclosed
how justice was administered in those days. Thus, Justice
Hyde may be said to be the pioneer to put into practice the
system of Law Reporting in Bengal and, possibly, in India.
113
The proceedings of the Suddar Dewany Adawlat and the
Suddar Nizamat Adawlat were conducted in Persian and the
decisions were also recorded in Persian and with the grant
of the Dewani those Courts functioned as Company
Courts, but the English version of those decisions were
reported in 1841 and thereafter.
In 1868, with the permission of the Court and the
patronage of the Government of Bengal, A. A. Sevestre
and W. Sevestre published Privy Council Reporter
containing Privy Council decisions on appeal from
Suddar Courts. The decisions of the Supreme Court were
published, from time to time, by private individuals with
Judges’ manuscripts available to them.
In 1862, with the establishment of the High Courts in
Bengal, Bombay and Madras by the High Courts Act (24 &
25 Vict., c. 104) in 1861, abolishing the Suddar Courts and
the Supreme Court, under which the jurisdiction and
powers of the High Courts were defined by Letters Patent
dated May 14, 1862 and the High Court of Judicature at
Fort William in Bengal opened on July 1, 1862, there came
out the Indian Jurist Report containing decisions of the
Privy Council and of High Courts in Bengal, Bombay and
Madras. These Reports contained long headnotes,
judgments, Notifications of High Courts etc. In 1864,
Sutherland’s Weekly Reporter was published with
decisions of the Privy Council and the High Court— civil,
114
criminal and revenue. Several short-lived journals were in
the field. In 1864, Bengal Law Reports giving decisions of
the Privy Council and the High Court was published by
the Bengal Council of Law Reporting. In 1878, Calcutta
Law Report with the short and long headnotes and
decisions of the High Court was published. The Legal
Companion came out from Srirampore with decisions of
the Privy Council and the High Court.
So long the publication of law journals was in private
hands. It was, therefore, proposed to bring out law
journals containing decisions of the High Court with the
stamp of authority of the Government. So that, by Act II of
1875, the Indian Law Reports Act was enacted on January
19, 1875, but the provisions of the Act were found
inadequate and that Act was, subsequently, repealed by
the Repealing Act XII of 1876 dated April 11, 1876.
Accordingly, by Act XVIII of 1875 dated October 13, 1875,
the Indian Law Reports Act was enacted which came into
force on January 1, 1876. This is "An Act for the
improvement of Law Reports". Section 3, as amended,
reads as follows: "Authority given only to authorised
report,—No Court shall be bound to hear cited, or shall
receive or treat as an authority binding on it, the report of
any case decided by any High Court for a State other than a
report published under the authority of any State
Government.” The Act does not, however, prohibit Courts,
if they so like, to look to private reports. In 1876, Indian
Law Reports (Calcutta series, Bombay series and Madras
series were issued simultaneously with the decisions
respectively of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High
Courts and also of the Privy Council. They were published
under the authority of the Governor General in Council
and issued from Calcutta. Some reports were issued by
Thacker Spink Co., Calcutta. Most of them were printed
by the Superintendent, Government Printing in Bengal,
till printing was done at Bombay and Madras,
respectively, for those High Courts, and with the
establishment of High Courts in different Provinces (now
States), printing of those authorised reports are done at
those places. The Report contained the decisions of the
Privy Council, the High Court, the names of Judges, the
name of the Editor (from 1895), the names of the
Reporters, short and long headnotes, General Index
containing names of reported cases and also cases cited
therein. The first judgment dated March 6, 1875
published, was by Justice Romesh Chandra Mitter,
appearing in volume I of the journal and came out in July
1876. From 1924, this journal was being published under
the authority of the Governor of Bengal in Council and
issued by the Bengal Secretariat, Book Depot, Writers'
Buildings. From 1937, it was being published under the
authority of the Government of Bengal by the
Superintendent, Government Printing Press, Alipore,
Bengal.
During the period 1875 and 1894, there was no editor, but
the reporting was looked after by the Reporters, namely,
N. H. Thomson, J. V. Woodman, C. P. Hill, Ameer Ali, C. H.
Reily and J. G. Apcar, Barristers-at-Law. From 1895,
besides the Reporters, Editors, who were and are also
called Chief Reporters, were appointed.
The following may be mentioned:
1895-1899, Editor : J. V. Woodman, Barrister-at-Law
1900-1902, Joint Editors : J. V. Woodman and C. E. Grey,
Barrister-at-Law
1903-1909, Joint Editors: C. E. Grey and B. D. Bose,
Barrister-at-Law
1910-1927, Editor: B. D Bose, Barrister-at-Law,
14.12.28-30.4.53, Editor (resigned): Sarat Chandra
Mitra, Advocate
1.5.53-31.12.57, Editor (resigned): A. C. Ganguli,
Barrister-at-Law
1.1.58-27.2.66, Editor (died): G. K. Dutt, Barrister-at-Law
2.3.66-16.5.66, Editor (acting): D. K. Ghosh, Barristerat-Law
17.5.66-8.3.70, Editor (resigned): A. C. Ganguli,
Barrister-at-Law
9.3.70-13.8.70, Editor (acting) : D. K. Ghose, Barristerat-Law
14.8.70-23.5.78, Editor (died) : Sudhindra Nath Palit,
Advocate
27.5.78- , Editor: Jnanendra Nath Baksi, Advocate
115
From the Note on Law Reporting written by Sir Frederick
Pollock for the High Court in 1936 the Council of Law
Reporting in Calcutta was formed. The Council consists
of five members of whom two are Judges—the senior
Puisne Judge, if not the Chief Justice becomes the
President, members are the other Judges selected by the
Chief Justice, and three members from the Bar—, each
representing the Bar Libray Club, the Bar Association and
the Incorporated Law Society. The First Council consisted
of the following:
President
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sir Leonard Wilfred Costello
Members
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hugh Rehere Pankridge
Sir Asoka Kumar Roy
Mr. Rama Prasad Mukhopadhyaya
Mr. Sailendra Nath Ghose
Present Members of the Council of Law Reporting are:
President
The Hon'ble Mr. Chittotosh Mookerjee, the Chief Justice
116
Members
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manjula Bose
Mr. Ranjit Kumar Lala
Mr. Pramatha Nath Palit
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Bose
In fine, for the need of the growing and diversity of our
population, laws on a mass scale, whether new or by way
of amendments, are enacted. Consequently, for
interpretation and application of those laws judgments, on
a large scale, are delivered every year. The reported
decisions in the law reports disclose the state of our
existing society and the part played by the administration
in the three branchs,— the legislature, the judiciary, and
the executive, and would be pointer to remedial measures
to be taken. Past decisions or precedents are valuable in the
evolution of the development of legal concept, and help the
Bar to be acquainted with them and the Judges in the
discharge of justice.
Law reports are mirrors which reflect the ways and
manners of our changing society and through which we
see our own faces—real and with mask on.
þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû £z! þ£y¢
— ×#
þ öì ¨% îy ! þ
öîìû îyû ~öì öì ~ö¢ì! é îy! Ä þîöûì þ ! þhsþ$ îyû ÷ì ! þ þ x÷ì öì þÄîû ¢ö%ëìy
£z
! öëìû þyîyû þÊ
~öì öì ²Ì¦þyî !îhßþyîû þîöûì þ y Ð þ y #îû ²Ì£¢öì îû þ îç
û
£z öîìöûì îû x! þyîû þ y þyöþì y=þ £ë!û ö¢Ýþy £ î:yîû ëö%åì îyî #îû þyö¢ìöì îû
þ îyû öëìîûû þ îÐû þ !îþû ) Å îyû ÷ì ! þ þ x! þyîû yö¦ìþîû þ öíì ²Ìí þ öÇìþöþì îû þ ö)îì£Åz
£z öîìû ~öì öì þyîû x! þyîöûì þ ~ þÝþy xy£z ¢A þ îþ)û ! öì þ ²Ìëyû¢# £ Ð ~îû
þ ×!% þ £ 1765 Þ,Ýþyö·
ì îû 12£z xy ÞÝþ ! Í#Ôîû îy yö£ìîû þy é öíöì þ £ÞzÝþ £!zuþëyû
ö þyÁ y #îû îyA y y !î£yîû ç vþ!zvþ¡üÄìyîû ö çëyû # y¦þÐ ~îû þ îû ²Ìî! þÅ þ £
£z öîìöûì îû ²Ì y¢ vþözj
ì Ä £ îy! ! Ä þ ßþyºíÅ ¢ îÇûþ ç ¢yÁyË Ä ¢Á±¢yîû Ð öë
! é î! þ ö¢ £ îyû y ö öì îû ö yöì þîû [þ ö%[ìþîû þ þÅy xí þ ö öì îû ö y þ
ö þy ç ! ßþöº²ìÀç ¦þyîöì þ þ yöîì!û öë ëyîyû ~ þ! îyûhßþyëû îyûhßþyëû ! þ!îû þöîìû öîvþyü þ
þyîyû ¦þy Ä ¸#îû îöîì£ûz ö£y þ xyîû þ)Ýþ þ þÊyhsþ y !îhßþyîû þöîì£ûz ö£y þ ~ ö öì îû
þ ä þ þyvþ¢z
ç îbû Z%þ þöîìû ~öì öì þ y!îoûÄ ç ! ßþº þyîû ö ¡ì ¢# yëû
! öëìû ëyöîì ! þhsþ$ !î y þyîû !î! þe !î yöì ~Ýþy£z xöì y ¢öì þÄ þ !îû þ £ Ð
òòî! öì þîû y [þ ö y ! öþ y£yöì îÅîû# îûy [þîû*öìþ óóÐ
²Ì y¢ ²Ìî Åþöì îû þ )öìîÅ£z £z öìîû ~öì öì þyîû !î þyîû îÄîÞíy ²Ìî Åþ þöìîû! é Ð
~£z !î þyîû îÄîÞíy !î!¦þ§¬ !îî Åþöì îû Ä ! öìëû ~! öìëû ëyëûÐ ~£z !îî Åþöì îû
þ ×%! þ 1862 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû 1 y % y£z þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû §ÃÐ ¢% þîûy
þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû £z! þ£y¢ xyöì y þ y ²Ì¢öìA %î ßþºy¦þy!î þ¦þyöìî£z ~öì¢ þ öìvþü
~îû ²Ìy äþéôé §Ã @À £z! þ£y¢Ð ¦þyîûöì þ !îÊ!Ýþ !î þyîû îÄîÞíyîû ¢)eþ yöì þîû
þ Ýþ¦)þ! þyëû !î!¦þ§¬ !îî Åþöì îû Ä ! öìëû ~! öìëû ~öì¢ þ þy þy £y£zöì þyÝÅþ ! þîû)öìþ
ßþºy # ¦þyîûöì þîû £y Åy! þîûöì þ !îû þ £öìëûöì é þyîû£z ¢ !Çþ® £z! þ£y¢ î Å y
xy yöì îû xy öì þîû xyöì y þÄ !î¡ìëûÐ
¦þyîûöì þ !îÊ!Ýþ !î þyîû îÄîÞíyîû ¢)eþ yöì þîû £z! þ£y¢öì þ ö yÝþy %!Ýþ þöìëû þ!Ýþ ¦þyöì
¦þy þîûy öëöì þ þ yöìîûÐ
²Ìí þ öìîÅ 1726 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû þ )îÅ þ ëÅhsþ £zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y # % öì îû x #öì
! öì öì îû ! yîû#öì þ ! þ %é ! þ %é !î þyîû þyëÅ þîûöì þ Ð ¢y yîû xy y þ %öì y ! é
% öì îû ! ëûsþf y # Ð £zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y # î! þ ¢A £öì ç ö¢ ¢ öìëû
~öì öì îû ²Ì þ! þ ! yîû# xy y öì þîû öì þy ö þyÁ y #îû ! yîû#öì þ ~ þ
îûöì îû !î þyîûy ëû ! é Ð îûy ßþº xy yëû ) ÇþÄ £öì ç ~éôé¢î xy y þ ! ßþº
! yîû# ~ y þyëû ö þï yîû# ç ö çëûy # vþz¦þëû!î y yéôéö y þj yîû !î þyîû
þîû þ ! þhs$þ xy£z þ £zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y #îû ! yîû# xy y þ !î þyîû Çþ þy
y¦þ þîû þ %
þ Å,þþ öìÇþîû þy é öíöì þÐ þ )îÅöì öì îy! öì Äîû îûy þ#ëû ¢
y¦þ
þîûöì ç þ £zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y #îû ! yîû# xy y þ %öì yîû ö þï yîû# ç
ö çëûy # !î þyîû îÄîÞíyîû vþzþ îû £z öìuþîû îûy y îy þ y Åyöì öìrÝþîû ö þy ç ! ëûsþf îy
þ ,Åþc ! é yÐ 1698 ,ÞÝþy· öíöì þ %îû& þöìîû 1726 ,ÞÝþy· þ ëÅhsþ ~£z xîÞíy
þöì Ð 1698 ,ÞÝþyöì· £zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y # þ ,Åþ þ þ þy þy ¢% þy %!Ýþ ç
ö y!î¨þ %îû ~£z ! þ !Ýþ @ùÌy Êþëû þîûyîû ¢yöìí ¢yöìí£z £zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y #îû
! yîû# xy y þ %öì y ¢,!Tþ £ëûÐ ¢% þîûy ~éôé þíy î y ëyëû öë îûy [þ £yöì þ y
~öì ç £zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y # ~öì öì ! öì öì îû ! yîû# ~ y þyëû ~ þ îûöì îû
!î þyîû îÄîÞíyîû ¢)eþ y þ þöìîû þ y #îû ë%öìå îû î£% þ )îÅ öíöì þ£zÐ
!m þ#ëû þ öìîÅ £z öìuþîû îûy y ²Ìí öì Åîû îûy c þyöì 1726 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû 24öì
ö¢öì²WzÁºöìîûîû þyÝÅþyîû îy îûy þ#ëû ¢ öì îû ö y¡ì yîöì £zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y #öì þ
þ þy þyëû ö ëûîû xy y þ SMayor s CourtV ²Ì! þÛþyîû x! þyîû ö çëûy £ëûÐ
117
£zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y # þ Å,þ þ þ þy þyëû ~£z ö ëûîû xy y þ ²Ì! þÛþyîû þ îû öíöì þ£z
%îû% £ëû ¦þyîûöì þ !îÊ!Ýþ !î þyîû îÄîÞíyîû x@ùÌ ! þÐ 1773 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû öîû %öì !Ýþ
xÄyöìQîû #! þ x %¢, þ £çëûyîû þ îû 1774 ,ÞÝþyöì· îûy y ,þ þ#ëû öì Åîû îûy þ#ëû
ö y¡ì y x %¢yöìîû þ þy þyëû ¢%²Ì# ö þyÝÅþ ²Ì! þ!Ûþ þ £ëûÐ þöì ö ëûîû xy y öì þîû
xî¢y £ëû ~î ~öì öì !îÊ!Ýþ !î þyîû îÄîÞíyîû !m þ#ëû þ öìîÅîû þ !îû¢ y!® öìÝþÐ
~öì öì îû !îÊ!Ýþ !î þyîû îÄîÞíyëû ~£z ö ëûîû xy y öì þìîû ~ þ !îöì ¡ì %îû%c xyöì éÐ
îûy þ#ëû ¢ myîûy ¢îÅ²Ìí £z ~£z xy y öì þîû Çþ þy ç ~ y þy ! Åy!îû þ £ëûÐ ~£z
xy y öì þîû ö þï yîû# ~ y þyîû ~!=þëûyîû ! é In and for the said town or
factory of Calcutta at Fort William in Bengal and other factories
subordinate thereto and within ten miles of the same
respectively. ~£z ö ëûîû xy y öì þìîû !î þyîû îÄîÞíyëû £z öìuþîû ²Ì þ! þ
xy£z !î! x %¢, þ £ þÐ £z öìîû # ¦þy¡ìyöì þ£z ~£z xy y öì þîû þy þ Å £ þÐ
~£z ö ëûîû xy y þ !àþ þ £ þ ~ þ ö ëûîû ç þöìëû þ xÓþyîû Äy ! öìëûÐ
²Ì! þ î éîû ) þ þöìîû ö ëûîû ! ë%=þ £öì þ Ð xÓþyîû Äy îûy ö þy ç þyîûöì þ %þÄ þ
y £öì ¤þyîûy xy #î ¤þyöì îû þ öì x! !Ûþ þ íy þöì þ þ yîûöì þ Ð ö ëûîû ç
xÓþyîû Äy öì îû xy % öì þÄîû þ í ! öì þ £ þÐ ¢y yîû þ ~£z þ í @ùÌ£
þîûyöì þ ¦þ Åîû xíîy þyvþz!ªöì îû ¢¦þyþ ! þÐ ¤þyöì îû x %þ !Þí! þöì þ þ í @ùÌ£
þîûyöì þ þyvþz!ªöì îû %ó ²Ìî# ¢ ¢ÄÐ
1726 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû îûy þ#ëû ¢ öì îû ö y¡ì yîöì ö ëûîû ç ó xÓþyîû Äy ! öìëû
þ þy þyîû ²Ìí ö ëûîû xy y þ !àþ þ £ëûÐ ~£z îûy þ#ëû ¢ öì î y £ëû öë
ö ëûîû ~î ó xÓþyîû Äyöì îû öì Ä xhsþ þ ¢y þ £öìî ¤y!Ýþ !îÊ!Ýþ ²Ì y
xyîû îy! þ %ó ~öì öì îû ! eîûyöì Äîû ²Ì yç £öì þ þ yöìîûÐ
118
ö ëûîû ç xÓþyîû Äy ! ë%!=þ !î¡ìöìëû 1726 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû îûy þ#ëû ¢ öì îû
x !îöì ¡ìéôôôé And we do hereby further, for us, ours Heirs and
Successors, will grant and appoint that John Sainsbury Lloyd,
Esq., be the first and Modern Mayor of the said town of Calcutta,
at Fort William, in Bengal, and that Thomas Bradyll, John
Bonket, Thomas Coalis, Thomas Cook, Henry Harnett, Robert
Frankland, George Petty, Oliver Coult, and James Nevill
Merchants be the first and Modern Aldermen thereof; which said
Mayor and Aldermen shall at a time to be appointed for the
purpose by the Government or President or in Absence, by the
two Seniors of the Council of Fort William thirty days after
notice of this our Charter, take an Oath of Allegiance; which
Oaths the said Government or President and in his Absence, the
two Seniors of the Council, residing at Calcutta, in Bengal
aforesaid, are hereby empowered to administer.
1753 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû 8£z y %ëûyîû#îû þyÝÅþyîû îy îûy y !m þ#ëû öì Åîû îûy þ#ëû ¢ öì îû
ö y¡ì yéôéîöì þ þy þy ö ëûîû xy y þ éyvþüyç Court of Requests y þ
~ þ ö çëûy # xy y þ ²Ì! þ!Ûþ þ £ëûÐ ~£z xy y öì þ ö éyÝþ yöìÝþy ö çëûy # y yîû
!î þyîû £ þÐ
ö ëûîû xy y þ Þíy!þ þ £öì ç ö þyÁ y #îû ! yîû#öì þ xî!Þí þ ! ßþº
xy y þ %öì y ~öì þîyöìîû vþzöìàþ ëyëû! Ð ~£z %ó îûöì îû xy y þ %öì yîû !î þyîû
þ å ! þç ! é ¢Á ) Å ßþº þsþf ç þ ,í þÐ ö ëûîû xy y öì þîû !î þyîû £ þ £z öìuþîû
xy£z !î! x %¢yöìîû xyîû ö þyÁ y # xy y öì þîû !î þyîû £ þ ö þyÁ y #îû ! ßþº
xy£z x %¢yöìîûÐ þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû xy! !î¦þyöì îû ~ y þy ç Çþ þy ~£z
ö ëûîû xy y öì þîû ~ y þy ç Çþ þy öíöì þ vþzq( þ xyîû xyþ # !î¦þyöì îû ~î
þ ßþº xy y öì þîû ~ y þy ç Çþ þy ö þyÁ y #îû xy y þ öíöì þ vþzq( þÐ
£z öìîû îûy ~öì öì ¢yÁËy Ä ²Ì! þÛþyîû ¢yöìí ¢yöìí ¢% ,C !î þyîû îÄîÞíy ²Ì ëûöì
²Ìëûy¢# £ xî Ä ~îû xy¢ vþzöìj Ä ! é ¢yÁËy Äîy # y¢öì îû !¦þ!_ ¢% , þü
þîûy ! þhs$þ ö ëûîû xy y þ ç ö þyÁ y # xy y þ ~£z %ó îûöì îû xy y öì þîû
x!hßþc ¢% ,C !î þyîû îÄîÞíy ²Ìî Åþöì îû þ öìí ²Ì y xhsþîûyëû £öìëû ¤yvþüyöì yÐ ~£z
xhsþîûyëû )îû £ þ îûî þ#Å þyöì Ð
1765 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû 12£z xy ÞÝþ £zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y # îyA y y !î£yîû ç
vþz!vþü¡ìÄyîû ö çëûy # y¦þ þöìîûÐ ö çëûy # yöì¦þîû þ îû öíöì þ 1772 ,ÞÝþy· þ ëÅhsþ
îûy ßþº xy yëû ç ö çëûy # !î þyîûéôé þyëÅ þ !îû þy y þîûöì þ %! Å yîy ! îy¢#
îyA y yîû yöìëûî îyî £Á¿ öîû y y ~î þ yÝþ y ! îy¢# !î£yöìîûîûîû yöìëûî
¢# þyî îûyëûÐ ~¤îûy îyA y yîû yöìëûöìîîû x # ! éöì Ð
1772 ,ÞÝþyöì· çëûyöìîû ö£!ÞÝþ ¢ îyA y yîû ¦þ Åîû £öìëû ~öì¢ ²Ìíöì £z yöìëûî
îyîöì îû Çþ þy %þÄ þ þöìîû þ ßþºöì îû îûy ßþº xy yëû ~î ö çëûy # ç ö þï yîû#
!î þyîû îÄîÞíy ¢Á ) Åîû)öìþ ö þyÁ y #îû ! ëûsþf y # þöìîû Ð £z! þ öì Ä ¢îû þyîû#
îûy öì þy¡ì %! Å yîy öíöì þ þ þy þyëû Þíy yhsþ!îû þ £ëû ~î 1772 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû
21ö xy ÞÝþ îûy ßþº xy yëû ~î ¢%! ëû!sþf þ !î þyîû îÄîÞíy ²Ìî Åþ þöìÒ ~ þ
þ !îû þÒ y îû! þ þ £ëûÐ
²Ìöì þÄ þ þyöì Qîû#öì þ ö çëûy # ö y þj yîû Ä ~ þ!Ýþ þ ßþº ö çëûy #
xy y þ Þíy!þ þ £ëû ~î ~£z ¢î þ ßþº ö çëûy # xy y öì þîû | ¹Å þ
ö çëûy # xy y þ Þíy!þ þ £ þ þy þyëûÐ ~îû y ¢ îû ö çëûy # xy y þÐ
~ éyvþüy ö þï yîû# !î þyöìîûîû
£ ~î þ þy þyëû Þíy!þ þ £
! y þ xy y þÐ ~îû þöì ö
£zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y #îû ! ëûsþf y
Ä ²Ìöì
| ¹Å
çëûy
# £
þÄ þ ö yëû ö þï yîû# xy y þ Þíy!þ þ
þ ö þï yîû# xy y þÐ ~îû y £ ¢ îû
# ç ö þï yîû# !î þyîû îÄîÞíy ¢Á ) Åîû)öìþ
Ð
~îû þ îû %îû% £ !îÊ!Ýþ !î þyîû îÄîÞíy ²Ìî Åþöì îû ,þ þ#ëû þ îÅÐ ö ëûîû xy y öì þîû
xîÄîÞíyîû þíy Êþ
!î yöì þîû þ ,Åþþ öìÇþîû þ Åöì y þîû £ Ð £z! þ öì Ä ¤þyîûy
ö þyÁ y #îû ! ëûsþföì îû !î¡ìëûç ! þhsþy þîû! éöì Ð ~îû þ ×%! þ £ 1773
,ÞÝþyöì·îû öîû %öì !Ýþ xÄyQ îy ! ëûsþf xy£z Ð þ îûy y ,þ þ#ëû öì Åîû
îûy c þy Ð ~£z öîû %öì !Ýþ xÄyöìQîû !î y x %¢yöìîû 1774 ¢yöì îû 26öì
yöì Åþîû þyÝÅþyöìîû îy îûy y ,þ þ#ëû öì Åîû îûy þ#ëû ¢ öì îû ö y¡ì y x %¢yöìîû ö ëûîû
xy y öì þîû !îöì yþ ¢y þîûy £ ~î þ þy þy ¢%²Ì# ö þyÝÅþ ²Ì! þ!Ûþ þ £ Ð
ö ëûîû xy y öì þîû !íþ e ç x¢ y® y y ö y þj y !î þyîû ! Ü !_îû Ä
¢%²Ì# ö þyöìÝÅþ Þíy yhsþ!îû þ þîûy £ Ð ~ ¢Á öì Åþ ¢ !ÙÕTþ îûy þ#ëû ö y¡ì yîû
x !îöì ¡ìéôôôé
“......That it shall and may be lawful for us, by Charter of
Letters Patent, under the Great Seal of Great Britain, to
erect and establish a Supreme Court of Judicature, at Fort
William in Bengal aforesaid, to consist of a Chief Justice
and three other Judges being barristers of England or
Ireland of not less than five years standing, with power to
exercise and perform, in all civil, criminal, admiralty, and
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and to appoint such clerks and
other ministerial officers of the Supreme Court of
Judicature, at Fort William in Bengal, with such
reasonable salaries as shall be approved of by the
Governor and Council, therein further enacted, that so
much of the said Charter granted by His said late Majesty,
our Royal Grandfather, as respects or relates to the
establishment of the Mayor's Court at Calcutta aforesaid,
in Bengal, or to the civil, criminal or ecclesiastical
119
jurisdiction thereof, in the said United Company's
settlement there, or the subordinates thereto belonging in
case a new Charter shall be granted by us, in pursuance of
this Act, and shall be openly published at Fort William
aforesaid, from and immediately after such publication,
shall cease, determine and be utterly void, to all intents
and purposes.”
~£z îûy þ#ëû ö y¡ì yëû ¢%²Ì# ö þyöìÝÅþîû ²Ì y !î þyîûþ ! þîû öî þ îy!¡ìÅ þ xyÝþ
£y yîû þ yvþzuþ ~î x Äy Ä !î þyîûþ ! þöì îû öî þ îy!¡ìÅ þ éó£y yîû þ yvþzuþ ! ! ÅTþ
£ëûÐ
¢Äyîû £z y£z y £zöìÁ ¢%²Ì# ö þyöìÝÅþîû ²Ìí ²Ì y !î þyîûþ ! þ ! ë%=þ £ Ð ~¤îû ²Ì _
[þyöì éôéîöì £z 1775 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû 5£z xy ÞÝþ ! îyîû öî y óÝþyëû £yîûy
¨ %þ yöìîûîû þy¤!¢ £ëûÐ ~ éyvþüy ¢%²Ì# ö þyöìÝÅþîû ²Ì y ! þ
!î þyîûþ ! þîû y
£ éôôôé! îûîyÝÅþ ö þÁºy¢Å ! !ÞÝþöì þ !¢ yîû ö y£zÞÝþyîû ~î
£y£zväþÐ
þ þy þy ¢%²Ì# ö þyÝÅþ ²Ì! þÛþyîû þ îû ö ëûîû xy y þ !î %® £ îöìÝþ þî% ö þyÁ y #
xy y þ %öì yîû x!hßþc öíöì þ ö Ð ~îûy ! öì öì îû xy£z éôé þy % x %¢yöìîû
!î þyîû þîûöì þ y Ð þöì ö þyÁ y #îû xy y þ ç ¢%²Ì# ö þyöìÝÅþîû öì Ä ~ y þy
ç Çþ þyîû m¨µ %îû% £ Ð ~îû þöì x! îyëÅ¦þyöìî £zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y #îû
þyvþz!ª ç ¢%²Ì# ö þyöìÝÅþîû öì Äç !îöìîûy xyîû½þ £ Ð ~£z !îöìîûy þ 1774
,ÞÝþy· öíöì þ 1781 ,ÞÝþy· þ ëÅhsþéôôôé¢y þ î éîûÐ xîöì öì¡ì !îÊ!Ýþ þ y Åyöì rÝþ
1781 ,ÞÝþyöì· “Act of Settlement”é þ y þöìîû ¢%²Ì# ö þyöìÝÅþîû Çþ þy ç
~ y þy ! ! ÅTþ þöìîû ö Ð
120
1781 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû Act of Settlement ôé~îû x !îöì ¡ìôôô
“.........And whereas doubts and difficulties having arisen,
concerning the true intent and meaning of certain clauses
and provisions in the said Act, and Letters Patent, and by
reason thereof dissension hath arisen between the Judges
of the Supreme Court and the Governor General and
Council of Bengal; and the minds of many inhabitants,
subject to the said Government, have been disquieted with
fears and apprehensions, and further mischiefs may
possibly ensue from the said misunderstanding and
discontents, if a reasonable and suitable remedy be not
provided. And whereas it is expedient, that the lawful
Government of the provinces of Bengal, Behar and Orissa
should be supported, that the Revenues thereof should be
collected with certainty, and that the inhabitants should be
maintained and protected in the enjoyment of all their
ancient laws, usages, rights and privileges. May it
therefore please your Majesty that it may be enacted by the
King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and
consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and
Commons, in the present Parliament assembled and by
the authority of the same, that the Governor General and
Council of Bengal shall be subject, jointly and severally, to
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Fort William in
Bengal, for or by reason of any act or order, or any other
matter or thing whatsoever, counselled, ordered or done
by them in their public capacity only, and acting as
Governor General and Council.”
¢% þîûy ~öì öì !îÊ!Ýþ !î þyîû îÄîÞíyîû ,þ þ#ëû þ îÅ %ó ¦þyöì !î¦þ=þÐ 1774 ,ÞÝþy·
öíöì þ 1781 ,ÞÝþy· xíÅyêþ Act of Settlement éôé~îû ²Ì ëû þy þ ëÅhsþ ¢y þ
î éîû £ ²Ìí ¦þy xyîû 1781 ,ÞÝþy· öíöì þ 1862 ¢yöì îû 30öì % þ ëÅhsþ
xíyÅê £y£zöì þyÝÅþ ²Ì! þÛþyîû þ )îÅ þ ëÅhsþ £ !m þ#ëû ¦þy Ð
¢%²Ì# ö þyÝÅþ ²Ì! þÛþyîû þ îû ö þyÁ y #îû xy y þ %öì y ¢Á öì Åþ y y ëyëû öë
1774 ,ÞÝþyöì· £zvþzöìîûyþ #ëû þyöì Qöìîûîû þ !îûîöì Åþ ¦þyîû þ#ëû xy! ! ë%_« £ ~î
þ þy þy î Å y þy þy %! Å yîy ! y þ %îû ç þ yÝþ yöì þ éó!Ýþ ²Ìyöì ! þ
þyvþz!ª ! ë%=þ £ëûÐ xy! öì îû öíöì þ %îû% þöìîû ²Ìyöì ! þ þyvþz!ª þ ëÅhsþ ~î
!îöì ¡ì !îöì ¡ì öÇþöìe ¦þ Åîû ~î þyvþz!ªöì îû ! þÝþ xyþ # þîûy þ þÐ
þ !îûî Åþ ¢y! þ £ Ð 1861 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû 6£z xy ÞÝþ þ þy þy öîyöìÁº ç yoy
ö²Ì!¢öìvþª#öì þ £y£zöì þyÝÅþ ²Ì! þÛþyîû ö y¡ì y þöìîû ~ þ xy£z ²Ìî Åþ þîûy £ Ð ö¢£z
xy£zöì îû x !îöì ¡ìéôôôé
“Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by
and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, in the present Parliament
assembled and by the authority of the same as follows :—
~îû þ îû %îû% £ þ %þíÅ þ îÅ : 1862 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû 1 y % y£z xíÅyê £y£zöì þyÝÅþ ²Ì! þÛþyîû
þ îû öíöì þ 1937 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû 1 y ~!²Ì xíÅyê 1935 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû ¦þyîû þ y¢
¢ ßþñyîû xy£z ²Ìî Åþ þ ëÅhsþÐ
1. It shall be lawful from Her Majesty by Letters Patent
under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, to erect and
establish a High Court of Judicature at Fort William in
Bengal for the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort
William aforesaid, and by like Letters Patent to erect and
establish like High Courts at Madras and Bombay, for
these Presidencies respectively, such High Courts to be
established in the said several Presidencies at such times
or respective times as to Her Majesty may deem fit, and
the High Court to be established under any such Letters
Patent in any of the said Presidencies shall be deemed to
be established from and after the Publication of such
Letters Patent in the same Presidency, or such other time
as in such Letters Patent may be appointed in this behalf.
1857 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû £y!îöìoyöì£îû þ îû ¦þyîûöì þ £zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y #îû y¢öì îû
xî¢y £ ¦þyîûöì þîû y¢ îÄîÞíy !îÊ!Ýþ þ y Åyöì öìrÝþîû ²Ì þÄÇþ ! ëûsþf y #
£ Ð ¦þyîû þ ¢! þöìîîû ! öì Å x %¢yöìîû îvþü yÝþ îûy ²Ì! þ! ! îû)öìþ ¦þyîû þ#ëû ²Ì y¢
þ !îû þy yîû ¢öìîÅyF þ ! ëûy þ îöì ö y!¡ì þ £öì Ð !î þyîû îÄîÞíyîûç xy )
2. The High Court of Judicature at Fort William in
Bengal and at the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay
respectively shall consist of a Chief Justice and as many
judges not exceeding fifteen, as Her Majesty may from
1775 ,ÞÝþyöì· ! y þ xy y þ xíÅyê ö þyÁ y #îû ¢öìîÅyF þ ö þï yîû#
xy y þ þ þy þy öíöì þ %! Å yîyöì Þíy yhsþ!îû þ þîûy £ ~î yöìëûî y!
îû)öìþ £Á¿ öîû y yöì îû vþzþ îû ~îû þ_´yî yöì îû ¦þyîû x!þ Å þ £ Ð ~£z £
1774 ,ÞÝþy· öíöì þ 1781 ,ÞÝþy· þ ëÅhsþ ¦þyîûöì þ !îÊ!Ýþ !î þyîû îÄîÞíy
!îî Åþöì îû ö yÝþ %!Ýþ £z! þ£y¢Ð
121
time to time think fit and appoint, who shall be selected
from: —
1st. Barristers of not less than five years standing, or
2nd. Members of the Covenanted Civil Service of
not less than ten years standing, and who shall have
served as Zillah Judges, or shall have exercised the
like powers of a Zillah Judge, for at least three years
of that period, or
3rd. Persons who have held Judicial Office not
inferior to that of Principal Sudder Ameen or Judge
of Small Causes Court for a period of not less than
five years, or
4th. Persons who have been pleaders of a Sudder
Court or High Court for a period of not less than ten
years, if such pleaders of Sudder Court shall have
been admitted as pleaders of a High Court.
Provided that not less than one-third of Judges of such
High Courts respectively, including Chief Justice, shall be
Barristers, and not less than one-third shall be Members of
Covenanted Civil Service.
Provided always that the persons who at the time of the
establishment of such High Court in any of the said
Presidencies are Judges of the Supreme Court of
Judicature and permanent Judges of the Court of Sudder
122
Dewanny Adawlut or Sudder Adawlut of the same
Presidency shall be and become Judges of such High Court
without further appointment for that purpose; and the
Chief Justice of such Supreme Court shall become the
Chief Justice of such High Court.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
8. Upon the establishment of such High Court aforesaid
in Presidency of Fort William in Bengal, the Supreme
Court and the Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut and
Sudder Nizamat Adawlut at Calcutta in the same
Presidency shall be abolished.”
~£z xy£zöì ¢þ y!îû¡ì ¦þ Åîû ö yöìîû öì þ ²Ìöìëûy
x! þ!îû=þ !î þyîûþ ! þ ! öìëûyöì îû x! þyîû ö çëûy £ Ð
öìîyöì
%óî éöìîûîû
Ä
~£z xy£z x %¢yöìîû 1862 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû 14£z ö óîû Letters Patent myîûy
£y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû ~ y þy ç Çþ þy ! ! ÅTþ £ Ð ~£z Letters Patent myîûy£z
£y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû ~ y þy ç Çþ þy ! ! ÅTþ £ þÐ
1861 ¢yöì îû 6£z xy öìÞÝþîû ö y¡ì y x %¢yöìîû þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû §Ã £
1862 ¢yöì îû 1 y % y£zÐ þyîû xyöì îû ! 30ö % öíöì þ£z ¢%²Ì# ö þyöìÝÅþîû
þyëÅ þy ö ¡ì £öìëû ö Ð ¢%²Ì# ö þyöìÝÅþîû ²Ì y !î þyîûþ ! þ y #ëû ¢Äyîû îyöì Å¢
!þ þ äþ þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû ²Ì y !î þyîûþ ! þ ! ë%=þ £öì Ð ²Ì y !î þyîûþ ! þ
y #ëû ¢Äyîû îyöì Å¢ !þ þ äþ îÄ þ# þ ! Á¬! ! þ !î þyîûþ ! þ
þ þy þy
£y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû ²Ìí !î þyîû þ uþ #éôôôé
S1V
S2V
y #ëû !
y #ëû !
þy Å¢ îûîyÝÅþ Äy þ¢ éôôôé îÄy!îûÞÝþyîûÐ
vÅþÄyrÝþ yvþz¢ çöìëû ôôôé îÄy!îûÞÝþyîûÐ
S3V
y #ëû !
þy Å¢ä !î! öÝþÆ¦þîû ôôôé !¢!¦þ ¢y!¦Åþ¢Ð
S4V
y #ëû ! ö£ îû# Ýþ y¢ îûy£z äþ¢ ôôôé !¢!¦þ ¢y!¦Åþ¢Ð
S5V
y #ëû !
S6V
y #ëû ! !¦þ öì¢rÝäþ öî£z # ôôôé !¢!¦þ ¢y!¦Åþ¢Ð
S7V
y #ëû !
S8V
y #ëû !
Å
þ ôôôé !¢!¦þ ¢y!¦Åþ¢Ð
þy Å¢ !ÞÝþëûyîûé ôôôé !¢!¦þ ¢y!¦Åþ¢Ð
þ Äy:Ýþ
îû Äy ôôôé îÄy!îûÞÝþyîûÐ
S£z! 1871 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû 21öì ö¢öì²WzÁºîû þ þy þy Ýþyvþz £öì
xyî %ÍÔy y þ ÷ì þ çëûy£î#îû %é!îû þy yöì þ ! £ þ £ ÐV
S9V
y #ëû ! çëûyÎÝþyîû
S10V y #ëû !
ÅÄy ôôôé îÄy!îûÞÝþyîûÐ
Êþy!ª¢ îy!îû öì þÁ ôôôé îÄy!îûÞÝþyîûÐ
S11V y #ëû ! çëûyÎÝþyîû ßþñÝþ ö¢£z þyîû ôôôé !¢!¦þ ¢y!¦Åþ¢Ð
S12V y #ëû ! ÞÝ%þëûyÝÅþ Äy þ¢ ä ôôôé !¢!¦þ ¢y!¦Åþ¢Ð
S13V y #ëû ! ~öìvþyëûyvÅþ !vþ yÝ%þîû ôôôé !¢!¦þ ¢y!¦Åþ¢Ð
1865 ,ÞÝþyöì·îû 28öì !vþöì¢Áºöìîûîû Letters Patentôé~ þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû
Çþ þy ç ~ y þy þ % îûyëû ) þ þöìîû ! ! ÅTþ £ Ð
1935 ¢yöì îû ¦þyîû þ y¢ ¢ ßþñyîû xy£zöì þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû ~ þ !îîûyÝþ
þ !îûî Åþ ¢y! þ £ëûÐ þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû öë ¢ þ !î¡ìëû ¦þyîû þ ¢îû þyöìîûîû
x # ! é ö¢ ¢ þ !î¡ìëû ²Ìyöì ! þ ¢îû þyöìîûîû x # £ Ð ~£z xy£zöì ²Ìyöì ! þ
ßþºyëû_ y¢öì îû x! þyîû ßþº# ,þ þ £öì ç þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû îÄëûéôéîîûyöìjîû
îÄyþ yîû ²Ìyöì ! þ xy£z ¢¦þyîû ö¦þyÝþ! îûöìþ Çþ þîûy £ Ð î Åþ yöì ç £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû
îÄëûéôéîîûyöìjîû îÄyþ yîû îûy Ä !î y ¢¦þyîû ö¦þyÝþ ! îûöìþ ÇþÐ
~îû þ îû 1947 ¢yöì îû 15£z xy ÞÝþ ![þ þ ö ßþºy # þy y¦þ þîû Ð 1950
,ÞÝþyöì·îû 26öì y %ëûyîû# ) þ ¢ !î y ²Ìî! Åþ þ £ Ð “The High Court
of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal”ôé~îû þ !îûîöì Åþ ~îû y
£ “High Court at Calcutta”Ð þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû ~ y þy ~ þ ¢ öìëû
î£%é ôôôé !îhß+þ þ ! é Ð ö !î¦þy ç !î!¦þ§¬ îûyöì Ä ) þ ) þ £y£zöì þyÝÅþ Þíy!þ þ
£çëûyîû þöì þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû ~ y þy Ç%þo þîû £öìëû þ vþü Ð !î þyîû ~ y þy
þ )îÅyöìþ Çþy Ç%þo þîû £öì ìç ¦þyîûöì þîû !î þyîû îÄîÞíyëû þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû ¢% y
ç %îû%c #¡ìÅÞíy #ëûõ xy yöì îû îÅ ç ö ïîûöìîîû !î¡ìëûÐ
vþzþ ¢ £yöìîû vþzöìÍÔ Ä ~£z öë ¢y yîûöì îû ,!Tþöì þ þ þy þy £y£zöì þyÝÅþ þ !Øþ îöìA îû
£y Åy! þîû ö ï! þ x! þyöìîûîû îûÇþy þ Åþy ç þ_´yî yëû þ öìî¡ìöì þîû
,!Tþöì þ ßþºy # þy ¢ @ùÌyöì îû ú! þ£y!¢ þ þíÄ ¢ @ùÌöì£îû ßþº Å ! Ð !Çþöì Ù»îû
öîy yîû xy!þ
y y ö ! #þ %öìîûîû Äy! öìÞÝþÆÝþ vþ y¢ ç îy Å £ þÄyîû xy!þ
y y yÞÝþyîû y ¢)ëÅ ö¢öì îû xy!þ
y y ²Ì¦,þ! þ !î!¦þ§¬ ú! þ£y!¢ þ y y
ö y þj yîû !íþ e £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþ ¢ îû!Çþ þ xyöì éÐ ! þ %öìîûîû ë%îîûy
!Ýþöì þw! öì þîû y yîû !íþ eç £ëû þ ö ¤y þîûöì þ yçëûy öëöì þ þ yöìîûÐ ~£z
¢ þ y yéôéö y þj y £ëû þ xy! îû ¤yîû y y ¦þyçëûy ¢§¬Äy¢#îû y y îy
þ y %þvþü y yîû Äyëû þyMþ Ä þîû ~î þ þ²Ì yéôéç £öì þ þ yöìîû ! þhs$þ ~£z ¢ þ
y yéôéö y þj yîû !íþ e ßþºy # þy ¢ @ùÌyöì îû î£% x y!îÜ,ñ þ ú! þ£y!¢ þ
þöìíÄîû vþzþ îû ) þ xyöì y þ¢Á y þ þöìîû þ ) ÅyA £z! þ£y¢ îû þ yîû vþzþ þîû
¢ @ùÌöì£îû ëöìíTþ ¢£yëû þ £öì þ þ yöìîûÐ xy yîû îÄ!=þ þ x!¦þKþ þy ~£z öë £y£zöì þyÝÅþ
þ Å,þþ Çþ ~éôé!î¡ìöìëû ëöìíTþ ¢£y %¦)þ! þ # Ð
~ !î¡ìöìëû xyîûç x@ùÌ # ¦)þ! þy @ùÌ£ þîûöì þ þy þy £y£zöì þyÝÅþ £z! þ£y¢ þ Åþy ç
öìî¡ì yîû ) þ myîû vþzå yÝþ þöìîû ö öì îû ¢yîûßþº þ ¢y yöì þ öë ¢yíÅ þ ç
¢y þ Ä ![þ þ þöìîû %þ öìî ö¢ !î¡ìöìëû ö þy ç ¢öì¨£ ö £zÐ !î ? öì îû
öìî¡ì yþ #àþîû)öìþ Äyëû!î þyöìîûîû þ #àþÞíy þ þy þy £y£zöì þyÝÅþ £öìî xyîûç îîû #ëûÐ
123
þíÄ! öì Å þ ¢)e
(1) The Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Fort
Willaim in Bengal—E. C. Ormond.
(2) Administration of Justice in British India—Morley.
(3) The First Century of British Justice in India—Sir
Charles Fawcett.
(4) High Court at Calcutta Centenary Souvenir, 18621962.
Sî Åþ y ²Ìîr !Ýþ x % #
¢ ßþñîû ÐV
~ þ
îy Åþyëû ²Ì þy! þ ²Ìîöìr îû þ !îûî! Åþ þ ç þ !îûî! Å þ
öìîû þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû £z! þ£y¢
1694 ,ÞÝþy· éôôôé £zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y #îû ! yîû#öì þ ö þyÁ y # xy y öì þîû
²Ì! þÛþyÐ
1726 ,ÞÝþy· éôôôé 24öì ö¢öì²WzÁºîûéôôôéîûy y ²Ìí öì Åîû îûy þ#ëû ¢ öì îû
ö y¡ì y myîûy £zÞÝþ £z!uþëûy ö þyÁ y #öì þ ö ëûîû xy y þ
²Ì! þÛþyîû x! þyîû ²Ì y Ð
124
1753 ,ÞÝþy· éôôôé 8£z y %ëûyîû#éôôôééîûy y !m þ#ëû öì Åîû îûy þ#ëû ¢ öì îû ö y¡ì y
myîûy Court of Requests y þ ö çëûy # xy y þ
²Ì! þÛþyÐ
1772 ,ÞÝþy· éôôôé 21öì xy ÞÝþéôôôéçëûyöìîû ö£!ÞÝþ ¢ þ Å,þ þ îûy ßþº xy yëû ç
¢%! ëû!sþf þ !î þyîû îÄîÞíy ²Ì ëû þöìÒ þ !îû þÒ y îû þ yÐ
1774 ,ÞÝþy· éôôôé 26öì y Åþéôôôéîûy y ,þ þ#ëû öì Åîû îûy þ#ëû ¢ öì îû ö y¡ì y myîûy
ö ëûîû xy y öì þîû !îöì yþ ¢y ç þ þy þy ¢%²Ì# ö þyÝÅþ
²Ì! þÛþyÐ
1781 ,ÞÝþy· éôôôé Act of Settlement ²Ìî Åþ myîûy þ þy þy ¢%²Ì# ö þyöìÝÅþîû
Çþ þy ç ~ y þy ! Åyîû Ð
1861 ,ÞÝþy· éôôôé 6£z xy ÞÝþéôôôé þ þy þy yoy ç öîyÁºy£z ö²Ì!¢öìvþ!ªöì þ
£y£zöì þyÝÅþ ²Ì! þÛþyîû ö y¡ì y þöìÒ xy£z ²Ìî Åþ Ð
1862 ,ÞÝþy· éôôôé 30öì % éôôôé þ þy þy ¢%²Ì# ö þyöìÝÅþîû þyëÅ þyöì îû xî¢y Ð
1862 ,ÞÝþy· éôôôé 1 y % y£zéôôôé þ þy þy £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû §ÃÐ
1865 ,ÞÝþy· éôôôé 28öì !vþöì¢Áºîûéôôôé Letters Patentôé~ £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû Çþ þy
ç ~ y þy ) þ þöìîû ! Åyîû Ð
1935 ,ÞÝþy· éôôôé ¦þyîû þ y¢ ¢ ßþñyîû xy£zöì £y£zöì þyöìÝÅþîû !îîûyÝþ þ !îûî Åþ
¢y Ð
1950 ,ÞÝþy· éôôôé 26öì y %ëûyîû#éôôôé The High Court of Judicature
at Fort Williaméôé~îû þ !îûîöì Åþ High Court at
Calcutta y þîû Ð
Name of the
Chief Justices &
Judges of the
High Court at Calcutta
(1862 to 1987)
.The
CHIEF JUSTICES
The Honourable Sir Barnes Peacock
1st July 1862—
26th April 1870
(Retired)
Was the last Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, and the first
Chief Justice of the High Court.
The Honourable Sir Richard Couch
Officiated as a President of the
Commission to investigate the
charges against the Gaekwar
of Baroda from 13 th February
to 4th April 1876.
The Honourable Sir Richard Garth
26th April, 1870—
5th April 1875 (Retired)
7th Nov. 1926
(Retired)
.The Honourable Sir George Claus Rankin 7th Nov. 1926—
11th Nov. 1934
(Resigned)
.The Honourable Sir Harold Derbyshire
K.T., M.C. ,K.C.
12th Nov. 1934—
10th Nov. 1946
(Retired)
.The Honourable Sir Arthur Trevor Harries 11th Nov. 1946—
26th June 1875—
24th March 1886
(Retired)
The Honourable Sir William Comer Petheram24th March 1886 –
31st October 1896
(Retired)
The Honourable Sir Francis Maclean, K.C.S.I. 9th Nov. 1896—
11th March 1909
(Resigned)
The Honourable Sir Lawrence Hugh Jenkins19th April 1909—
K.C.I.E.
13th Nov. 1915 (Resigned)
Was a Puisne Judge from 29th April 1896 to 19th
April 1899; was Chief Justice of Bombay from
22nd April 1899 to 14th March 1909; was on
special duty in the Home Department from 12 th
January to 7th February 1903; was on special
duty under the Government of India in the
Home Department from 9th to 16th April 1903;
was on deputation under Government of India.
Legislative Department from 11th June to 31st
August 1907
126
Honourable Sir Lancelot Sanderson, K.C.20th Nov. 1915—
Bar-at-law.
.The Honourable Mr. Phani Bhusan
Chakravartti, M.A. ,L.L.B.
13th June 1952
(Retired)
13th June 1952—
12th Oct. 1958
(Retired)
Acted as Chief Justice from 17th May 1952
to 12th June 1952. Was a Puisne Judge from
26th April 1945 to 16th May 1952. Was on
deputation from 8th May 1949 to 30th
April 1951. Acted as Governor from 8th
August 1956 to 2nd November 1956.
.The Honourable Mr. Kulada Charan
Das Gupta, M.A.,I.C.S., Bar-at-Law
Was additional Judge from 13th May 1948
until appointed permanent Judge from
11th February 1949.
12th Oct. 1958—
17th Aug. 1959
(Vacated on being
appointed a Judge
of the Supreme
Court of India)
.The Honourable Mr. Surajit Chandra
Lahiri M.A. B.,L.
17th Aug. 1959—
7th June. 1961
(Vacated on being
appointed Governor
of West Bengal)
Was Puisne Judge from 3rd January 1949 to
16th August 1959.
.The Honourable Mr. Himansu Kumar Bose
Bar-at-Law
Was a Puisne Judge from the 8th Dec. 1949
to 6th June 1961.
.The Honourable Mr. D. N. Sinha
.The Honourable Mr. P. B. Mukherjee
.The Honourable Mr. S. P. Mitra
.The Honourable Mr. A. N. Sen
.The Honourable Mr. S.C. Ghose
.The Honourable Mr. S. C. Deb
.The Honourable Mr. Satish Chandra
.The Honourable Mr. A. K. Sen
.The Honourable Mr. Chittatosh Mookerjee
7th June, 1961
PUISNE JUSTICES
The Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Robert Mitchell
Jackson, KT., BAR-AT-LAW
Was a Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court when it was
abolished; was one of the thirteen Puisne Judges of the High
Court appointed by the Letters Patent, 1862.
1st July 1862—February 1863 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Mordant Lawson Wells,
KT., BAR-AT-LAW
Was a Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court when it was
1st July 1862—September 1863 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Henry Thomas Raikes, C.S.
Was a Judge of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut when it was
1st July 1862—31st December 1864 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Charles BinnyTrevor, C.S.
Was a Judge of the Sudder DewannyAdawlut when it was
abolished; officiated as Chief Justice from 9th August to
10th September 1863; was one of the thirteen Puisne
Judges of the High Court appointed by the Letters Patent,
1862.
1st July 1862—23rd April 1867 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice George Loch, C.S.
abolished; was absent on leave as a Judge of the Sudder Dewanny
Adawlut, and did not take his seat on the Bench of the High Court
until 4th December 1863; was one of the thirteen Puisne Judges of
the High Court appointed by the Letters Patent, 1862.
4th December 1863—1st April 1873 (Retired)
127
The Honourable Mr. Justice Hency Vincent Bayley,C.S.
1st July 1862—2nd February 1873 (Died)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Steer, C.S.
1st July 1862—23rd November 1865 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice John Paxton Norman,
BAR-AT-LAW
Officiated as Chief Justice from 12th April 1884 to I3th
February 1865; and again from 7th February to 16th March
1870; and again from 8th November 1870 until his death; was
one of the thirteen Puisne Judges of the High Court
appointed by the Letters Patent, 1862.
1st July 1862—21st September 1871 (Died by the
hand of an assassin on the steps of the
building now known as 'Town Hall', Calcutta)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Walter Morgan,
BAR-AT-LAW
Was appointed the first Chief Justice of the High Court of the
North Western Provinces, established in 1866 ; was one of the
thirteen Puisne Judges of the High Court appointed by the
Letters Patent, 1862.
1st July 1862—June 1868 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Francis Baring Kemp, C.S.
Officiated as Chief Justice from 21st September to 12th
November 1871; was one of the thirteen Puisne Judges of the
High Court appointed by the Letters Patent, 1862.
1st July 1862—15th April 1878 (Retired)
128
The Honourable Mr. Justice Walter Scott Seton-Karr,
C.S.
Was appointed Foreign Secretary in July 1868; was one of the
thirteen Puisne Judges of the High Court appointed by the
Letters Patent, 1862.
1st July 1862—July 1868 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Louis Stuart Jackson,
C.S., C.I.E.
Officiated as Chief Justice from 19th August to 17th
September 1878; was one of the thirteen Puisne Judges of the
High Court appointed by the Letters Patent, 1862.
1st July 1862—23rd June 1880 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Edward De Latour,
C.S., OFFG.
23rd July 1862—August 1862 (Died)
The Honourable Mr. Justice George Campbell, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on the 16th April 1863.
8th November 1862—27th November 1867 (Resigned
on being appointed Chief Commissioner,
Central Provinces)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Sumboo Nath Pundit,
VAKIL
2nd February 1863—6th June 1867 (Died)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Edward Parkins Levinge, C.S.
2nd March 1863—2nd March 1865 (Died)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Arthur Austin Roberts,
C.S. OFFG.
16th April 1863—27th November 1863 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Henry Mills, BAR-AT-LAW
15th February 1864—March 1864 (Died)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Elphinston Jackson, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 1st August 1865; officiated on
a previous occasion.
9th March 1864—February 1873 (Died)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Andrew Thomas
Turton Peterson, BAR-AT-LAW, OFFG.
12th April 1864—13th February 1865 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert James Scott, c.s.
2nd May 1864 (Died while absent on furlough
obtained 15 months from 24th May 1864)
The Honourable Mr. Justice John Budd Phear,
The Honourable Mr. Justice Frederick Augusta Bernard
Glover C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 3rd June 1868; officiated on
two pervious occasions.
3rd March 1868—10th August 1876 (Died)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Perry Hobhouse,
C.S., BARONET
Officiating until confirmed on 31st August 1868; officiated
on three previous occasions.
25th March 1868—27th December 1871 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Gregory Charles Paul,
BAR-AT-LAW, OFFG.
30th November 1870—3rd December 1871 (Vacated)
BAR-AT-LAW
9th August 1864—9th August 1876 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Arthur George
Macpherson, BAR-AT-LAW
Officiating until confirmed on 1st August 1863; officiated as a
Puisne Judge on a previous occasion, and as Chief Justice
from 13th February to 25th June 1875.
25th February 1865—1st October 1877 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice William Markby,
BAR-AT-LAW
19th June 1866—16th September 1878 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Dwarka Nath Mitter,
VAKIL
The Honourable Mr. Justice Unokool Chunder Mookerjee,
VAKIL, OFFG.
6th December 1870—17th August 1871 (Died)
The Honourable Mr. Justice William Ainslie, c.s.
Officiating until confirmed on 13th May 1873.
21st November 1870—1st June 1880 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Pontifex,
BAR-AT-LAW
31st August 1872—June 1882 (Retired)
The exact date is not known, for Mr. Justice
Charles Pontifex retired while he was on furlough.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Ernest George Birch, c.s.
Officiating until confirmed on 3rd June 1868.
16th July 1867—25th February 1874 (Died)
24th February 1873—18th April 1879 (Retired)
129
The Honourable Mr. Justice George Gordon Morris, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 7th July 1874.
30th June 1873—17th November 1882 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Romesh Chunder Mitter,
The Honourable Mr. Justice Henry Baring
Lawford, C.S., OFFG.
18th July 1877—16th September 1877 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Henry Stewart Cunningham,
VAKIL
BAR-AT-LAW
Officiating until confirmed on 20th July 1877; officiated as
Chief Justice on two occasions.
On deputation as a member of the Finance Committee, from
16th March 1886 to 23rd December 1886.
30th March 1874—1st January 1890 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice William Fraser McDonell, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 27th June 1878.
18th April 1874—30th April 1886 (Retired)
16th November 1877—26th July 1888 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Arthur Wilson,
BAR-AT-LAW
Acted as member in the Crawford Commission from
1st November 1888 to January 1889.
12th November 1878—21st April 1892 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice James Sewell White,
BAR-AT-LAW.
16th November 1876—19th May 1882 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Loftus Richard Tottenham, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 7th August 1879; officiated on
a previous occasion.
The Honourable Mr. Justice John Pill Kennedy,
BAR-AT-LAW, OFFG.
7th April 1877—12th December 1877 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Henry Thoby Princep,
C.S., KT.
Officiating until confirmed on 22nd August 1878; on
special duty to supervise the revision of the Codes of Civil
and Criminal Procedure from 28th May 1896 to 28th May
1898. Performed the duties of the Chief Justice from 16th
May to 3rd August 1902.
13th April 1877—1st April 1904 (Retired)
130
18th April 1879—7th March 1893 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Alexander Thomas Maclean,
C.S.
Officiated on a previous occasion.
17th November 1879—13th February 1885 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Lewis Price DelvesBroughton,
BAR-AT-LAW, OFFG.
11th May 1878—29th January 1882 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Dickson Field, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 18th October 1880.
23rd June 1880—7th September 1886 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice James O'Kinealy, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 22nd February 1883.
1st January 1882—23rd June 1899 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Mohendra Nath Bose
(Subordinate Judicial Service), OFFG.
1st January 1882—1st August 1882 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice William Macpherson, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 10th January 1885; officiated
on two previous occasions.
8th April 1884—26th March 1900 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice James Quain Pigot, C.S..
Officiating until confirmed on 11th July 1882.
4th May 1882—7th March 1896 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice John Freeman Norris,
The Honourable Mr. Justice Chunder Madhab Ghose,
VAKIL
Acting Chief Justice from 11th May 1906 to 5th August 1906.
12th January 1885—2nd January 1907 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice W. F. Agnew,
BAR-AT-LAW, OFFG.
16th March 1886—23rd December 1886 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice John Peter Grant,
C.S., OFFG.
Officiated on four previous occasions.
2nd March 1886—12th September 1886 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice G. E. Porter,
C.S., OFFG.
8th March 1886—13th September 1886 (Vacated)
BAR-AT-LAW
17th June 1882—20th November 1895 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice C. J. Wilkinson,
BAR-AT-LAW, OFFG.
13th March 1883 (Died during the absence
on privilege leave obtained on 19th Nov. 1883)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Henry Beverly, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 8th May 1885.; officiated on.
four previous occasions.
12th January 1885—11th September 1897 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice E. J. Trevelyan,
BAE-AT-LAW
12th January 1885—9th May 1898 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Gooroo Das Banerji,
M.A., LL.D., VAKIL
Officiating until confirmed on 16th January 1889.
19th November 1888—1st February 1904 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Amir Ali,
BAR-AT-LAW
2nd January 1890—14th April 1904 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice C. H. Hill, BAR-AT- LAW,
Officiating until confirmed on 21st April 1892; officiated on
three previous occasions.
5th February 1892—17th March 1904 (Resigned)
131
The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert Fulton Rampini, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 20th April 1893; officiated on
four previous occasions; twice acted as Chief Justice.
7th March 1893—8th November 1908 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Hamilton Wincup Gordon,
C.S., OFFG.
17th January 1895—31st March 1897 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice S. G. Sale, BAR-AT-LAW
21st November 1895—8th October 1907 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice L. H. Jenkins, Q.C.
29th April 1896 (Vacated on 19th April 1899
to assume the Office of Chief Justice of Bombay)
The Honourable Mr. Justice J. F. Stevens, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 14th December 1897;
officiated on a previous occasion.
11th April 1897—13th March 1904 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.O. Kinealy, BAR- AT-LAW,
OFFG.
The Honourable Mr. Justice C.A. Wilkins, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 19th October 1899; officiated
21st November 1898—6th April 1900 (Resigned)
132
The Honourable Mr. Justice Gilbert S. Henderson,
BAR-AT-LAW
13th June 1902—9th April 1906 (Died)
The Honourable Mr. Justice John Stanley, Q.C.
21st November 1898—(Vacated in August 1901
to assume the Office of Chief Justice of the
Allahabad High Court)
The Honourable Mr. Justice J. Pratt, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 18th May
1900; officiated on a previous occasion.
7th July 1899—16th July 1906 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Richard Harington,
BARONET
Twice acted as Chief Justice.
20th November 1899—15th November 1913 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Cecil Michael Wilford Brett,
KT. C.S.I., C.S.
18th April 1900—11th January 1913 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice F. B. Taylor, C.S.
OFFG.
3rd April 1901—13th November 1902 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Harry Lushington
Stephen, KT., BAR-AT-LAW
The Honourable Mr. Justice A. P. Handley, BAR- AT-LAW,
OFFG. Officiated on two previous occasions.
6th March 1903—14th November 1903 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Saroda Charan Mitra,
The Honourable Mr. Justice Herbert Holmwood, C.S.
M.A., B.L., VAKIL
Officiating until confirmed on 29th April 1904; officiated
26th January 1904—8th December 1908 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice B. G. Geidt, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 12th May 1904; officiated on
four previous occasions.
14th March 1904—15th April 1908 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice F. E. Pargiter, C.S.
15th March 1904—15th March 1906 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice A. E. Staley, C.S.,OFFG.
1st April 1904—22nd April 1904 (Vacated)
Officiating until confirmed on 8th January 1907;
officiated on two previous occasions.
30th March 1906—1st April 1916 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Peter Caspersz, C.S.
16th March 1906—7th November 1912 (Retired)
The Honourable Mr. Justice J. G. Wooddroffe,
KT., B.C.L., BAR-AT-LAW
Officiating until confirmed on 15th November 1904;
once acted as Chief Justice.
15th April 1904—11th November 1992 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Frank Bodily, BAR-AT-LAW
18th April 1904—1st November 1906 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Asutosh Mookerjee,
KT., C.S.I., M.A., D.L., D.SC., F.R.A.S., F.R.S.E., VAKIL
Officiating until confirmed on 11th August 1906;
once acted as Chief Justice.
6th June 1904—1st January 1924 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice B. L. Gupta, C.S., OFFG.
Officiated on two previous occasions.
11th May 1906—4th March 1907 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Ernest William Ormond,
BAR-AT-LAW, OFFG.
2nd March 1906—30th August 1906 (Vacated
on being appointed Judge of the Rangoon Chief Court)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Charles William Chitty,
KT., BAR-AT-LAW
2nd January 1907—23rd April 1919 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Ernest Edward Fletcher,
KT., BAR-AT-LAW
The Honourable Mr. Justice Saiyid Sharfuddin,
BAR-AT-LAW
Officiating until confirmed on 20th February 1908,
2nd January 1907 (Vacated on 1st March, 1915,
on being appointed Judge, Patna High Court)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Henry Reynell Holled
Coxe, C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 6th May 1908;
133
The Honourable Mr. Justice Lal Mohan Das,
M.A., B.L., VAKIL
23rd January 1908— 13th October 1910 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice H. L. Bell, BAR-AT- LAW,
OFFG.
24th April 1908—27th August 1908 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Alfred Edward Ryves, C.S.
9th November 1908— 13th November 1909 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Herbert William Cameron
Carnduff, KT., C.I.E., C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 17th December 1908.
9th November 1908—22nd January 1915 (Died)
The Honourable Mr. Justice William Henry Hoare Vincent,
C.S., OFFG.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Digamber Chatterjee,
M.A., B.L., VAKIL
Officiating until confirmed on 11th August 1909.
24th May 1909—1st March 1917 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice William Teunon, KT, C.S.
5th February 1912—11th November 1922 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice L. P. E. Pugh,
BAR-AT-LAW, OFFG.
31st March 1910—8th September 1910 (Vacated)
134
The Honourable Mr. Justice Nalini Ranjan Chatterjee,
KT., M.A., B.L., VAKIL
Officiating until confirmed on 28th December 1910;
officiated as Chief Justice on three occasions.
12th October 1910—22nd November 1926 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Ashutosh Chaudhuri,
KT., BAR-AT-LAW
Additional Judge until confirmed on 15th November 1913.
5th February 1912—12th June 1920 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Syed Hassan Imam,
BAR-AT-LAW
Additional Judge until confirmed on 15th November 1914
5th February 1912—1st March 1916 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Thomas William Richardson,
KT., C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 29th January 1913;
officiated on two previous occasions
The Honourable Mr. Justice Charles Porten Beachcroft,
KT., C.S.
Additional Judge until confirmed on 17th March, 1915;
23rd January 1915—9th November 1921 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Edmund Pelly Chapman,
C.S.
28th January 1913 (Vacated 1st March 1915,
The Honourable Mr. Justice Hari Nath Roy
(Sub. Jud. Ser.), OFFG.
28th March 1913—31st August 1913 Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Basanta Kumar Mullick,
C.S.
Additional Judge; officiated on a previous occasion.
22nd November 1913 (Vacated 1st March 1915,
The Honourable Mr. Justice William Ewart Greaves,
KT., BAR-AT-LAW
Additional Judge until confirmed on 1st March 1916.
23rd November 1914—23rd August 1927 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice H. Walmsley, KT., C.S.
Additional Judge until confirmed on 14th November 1915;
officiated on four previous occasions.
The Honourable Mr. Justice B. B. Newbould, C.S.
Additional Judge until confirmed on 25th April 1916.
14th November 1915—6th March 1927 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice F. R. Roe, C.S. OFFG.
30th November 1915—20th January 1916 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Richard Sheepshanks,
C.S., OFFG.
27th April 1916—4th September 1916 (Vacated)
The Honourable Nawab Mr. Justice Syed Shamsul Huda,
K.C.I.E, M,A.,; B.L., VAKIL
8th June 1917—3rd January 1921 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Maurice Smither,
C.S., OFFG.
17th November 1917—1st September 1918 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice G. C. Rankin,
BAR- AT-LAW
14th November 1918 (Appointed Chief Justice on
7th November 1926)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Charu Chander Ghose, KT.,
BAR-AT-LAW
Officiating until confirmed on 25th July 1919; officiated as
Chief Justice from 6th August 1931 to 10th September 1931;
from 27th August 1932 to 1st September. 1932; from 27th
March 1933 to 31st 'August 1933; from 2nd January 1934 to
29th January 1934.
15th July 1919—30th January 1934 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice P. L. Buckland,
K.T., BAR-AT-LAW
Officiating until confirmed on 4th August 1920;
officiated as Chief Justice from 27th February 1934 to 12th
July 1934.
10th November 1919—12th September 1934 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Majid
2nd August 1920—2nd September 1920 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Z. R. Zahid Suhrawardy,
KT., BAR-AT-LAW
25th February 1921—27th November 1931 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice A. H. Cuming, KT., I.C.S.
Officiated on five previous occasions.
10th November 1921—22nd November 1931 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice H. G. Pearson,
BAR-AT-LAW
Officiated until confirmed on 9th February 1922.
531
The Honourable Mr. Justice Bepin Behary Ghose,
The Honourable Mr. Justice J. F. Graham, I.C.S.
VAKIL
Additional Judge until confirmed on 1 7th November
1922.
11th November 1920—3rd September 1929 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice E. B. H. Panton, I.C.S.
5th December 1922—17th May 1929 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice A. J. Chotzner, I.C.S.
29th June 1923—5th July 1928 (Resigned)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Arthur Page, KT.,, K.C.
Additional Judge until confirmed on 18th January,
1924.
8th January 1923 (Appointed Chief Justice of
Rangoon on 8th April 1930)
The Honourable Mr. Justice H. P. Duval, I.C.S.
1st January 1926—26th November 1928 (Resigned)
Officiating until confirmed on 7th March 1927;
The Honourable Mr. Justice T. Thornhill, LL.D.,
BAR-AT-LAW, OFFG.
12th February 1924—28th August 1924 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Manmatha Nath
Mukherji, KT., M.A., B.L., VAKIL
Additional Judge until confirmed on 21st November
1926; officiated as Chief Justice from 13th July 1934 to
30th August 1934; from 11th November 1935 to 21st
December 1935; and from 21st August 1936 to 27th
July 1936.
2nd January 1924—28th October 1936 (Resigned)
136
The Honourable Mr. Justice Rai Dwarka Nath
Chakrabarti Bahadur, VAKIL, OFFG.
Officiated on one previous occasion.
13th July 1926—26th August 1926 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice P. E., Cammiade,
I.C.S., OFFG.
Officiated on one previous occasion.
16th November 1926—13th September 1928 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Gyanendra Nath Roy,
I.C.S., OFFG.
Officiated on two previous occasions.
14th May, 1927—25th August, 1927 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Ram Chandra Majumdar,
M.A., B.L., OFFG.
28th February 1927—24th May 1927 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice L. W. J. Costello, KT.,
BAR-AT-LAW
Officiated as Chief Justice from 15th May 1937 to 26th
August 1937; and from 31st July 1939 to 31st August 1939.
14th February 1927—15th March 1941 (Retired)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice John Lort-Williams, KT., K.C.
15th March 1928—14th September 1941 (Resigned)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyendra Chandra Mallik,
I.C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 6 th July 1928 ;
13th January 1928—17th March 1934 (Resigned)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. R. Garlick, I.C.S., OFFG.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. G. Gregory, BAR- AT-LAW,
OFFG.
14th May 1928—13th September 1928 (Vacated)
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. O. Remfry, BAR-AT- LAW,
OFFG.
1st June 1928—13th September 1928 (Vacated)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. E. Jack, I.C.S.
26th November 1928—21st December 1938 (Resigned)
The Hon’bIe Mr. Justice Dwarka Nath Mitter,
M.A., D.L., VAKIL
Officiating until confirmed on 3rd September 1929.
22nd November 1926—1st March 1937 (Resigned)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sarat Kumar Ghose, I.C.S.
Officiating until confirmed on 17th September 1929;
officiated on a previous occasion,
1st June 1929—3rd July 1929 (Vacated)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rai Nalini Kanta Basu Bahadur,
OFFG.
1st June 1929—5th July 1929 (Vacated)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. C. Patterson, I.C.S., OFFG.
Appointed permanent Judge on 23rd November 1931;
Acting Judge for November.
3rd June 1929—5th September 1929 (Vacated)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. C. Patterson, I.C.S., OFFG.
Appointed permanent Judge on 23rd November 1931;
Acting Judge on four previous occasions.
23rd June 1929—5th September 1929 (Vacated).
5th May 1939 (Retired)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rai Surendra Nath Guha,
Bahadur, ADVOCATE
Appointed permanent Judge from 13th November 1933;
Additional Judge on two previous occasions.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. R. Panckridge, KT.,
BAR-AT-LAW
Acting Judge from 31st May 1929 to 5th September 1929;
Additional Judge from 18th November 1929 to 31st March
1930; Acting Judge from 14th April 1930 until appointment as
a permanent Judge from 22nd April 1930.
31st May 1929—23rd August 1942 (Died)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. C. Ghosh, I.C.S.,
BAR- AT- LA W.
Appointed permanent Judge from 5th November 1932;
Acting Judge on two occasions.,
30th May 1930—20th January 1940 (Resigned)
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Ameer Ali, BAR-AT-LAW.
Appointed pernmnent Judge from 30th November 1931;
Acting Judge from 1st May 1931 to 10th September 1931.
1st May 1931—11th November 1944 (Retired)
137
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Charles Bartley, I.C.S.
Appointed permanent Judge from 17th March 1934;
Acting Judge on four previous occasions.
8th April 1932—18th December 1942 (Resigned)
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asoke Kumar Roy, KT.,
BAR-AT-LAW
Acting Judge from 29th April 1932 to 1st September
1932; and from 24th November 1933 to 4th May 1934.
29th April 1932—4th May 1934
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. D. McNair, BAR-AT- LAW
Appointed permanent Judge from 13th April 1934;
Acting Judge on two previous occasions.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Nag, M.B.E.,
BAR- AT-LAW
An additional Judge.
3rd April 1933—31st August 1933 (Vacated)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. G. R. Henderson, I.C.S.
Appointed permanent Judge from 1st March 1937;
officiated on three previous occasions.
3rd April 1933—22nd March 1946 (Resigned)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Nasim Ali, M.A., B.L.
Appointed permanent Judge from 29th October 1936;
officiated on two previous occasions. Officiated as
Chief Justice from 4th March 1946 to 29th June 1946.
13th November 1933—27th September 1946 (Died)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. E. Cunliffe, KT.,
BAR-AT-LAW,
Additional Judge until appointment as a permanent
Judge from 12 th November 1934.
11th June 1934—8th November 1937 (Resigned)
138
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. A. Khundakar,
BAR-AT-LAW.
Appointed permanent Judge from 10th November
1937 ; officiated on three previous occasions.
8th April 1934—10th May 1947 (Died)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. G. A. Edgley, I.C.S.,
BAR-AT-LAW.
Appointed permanent Judge from 5th May 1939;
officiated on five previous occasions.
5th July 1934—19th June 1948 (Resigned)
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rupendra Coomar Mitter,
M.SC., M.L.
Appointed permanent Judge from 8th November
1937; officiated on two previous occasions.
31st July 1934—18th January 1950 (Resigned)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. N. Rau,
KT. C.I.E., I.C.S.
Appointed permanent Judge from 16th January 1939;
officiated on one previous occasion.
2nd April 1935—1st February 1944 (Resigned)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. F. Lodge, I.C.S.
Acting Judge from 27th April 1935 to 29th August 1935; from
23rd July 1936 to 27th August 1936; from 7th November 1938
to 4th May 1939; Additional Judge from 5th May 1939.
27th April 1935—4th April 1948 (Vacated on bing
appointed Chief Justice of Assam High Court).
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bijan Kumar Mukherjee,
M.A., D.L.
Appointed permanent Judge from 3rd July 1939;
officiated on one previous occasion.
9th November 1936—14th October 1948 (Vacated
on being appointed a Judge of Federal Court. Later
became Chief Justice of India)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Charu Chandra Biswas, C.I.E.
Additional Judge from 1st March 1937 until
appointed permanent Judge on 26th February, 1940.
1st March 1937—1st January 1949 (Resigned)
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. H. B. Lethbridge, I.C.S.
Acting Judge
12th July 1937—26th August 1937 (Vacated)
The Hon’ble Mr. Jusdce Amarendra Nath Sen,
BAR-AT-LAW.
Acting Judge from 30th May 1938 to 25th August 1938, from
7th November 1938 to 2nd July, 1939; and Additional Judge
from 3rd July 1939.
30th May 1938—13th May 1951 (Resigned)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawabzada, A. S. M.
Latifur Rahman, BAR-AT-LAW.
Acting Judge on several occasions, 17th April 1944 to 31st
August 1944, 13th November 1944 to 28th February 1945.
8th February 1939—2nd June 1939 (Vacated)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. J. Y. Roxburgh,
C.I.E., I.C.S., BAR-AT-LAW.
Acting Judge from 12th May 1939 to 31st August 1939;
Additional Judge from 26th February 1940.
12th May 1939—31st August 1939 (Vacated).
15th November1939 to 1st March 1952
2nd March 1952 (Resigned)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. S. M. Akram, B.L.
Acting Judge
3rd July 1939—31st August 1939, 2nd January 1940,
to 16th August 1940, 11th November 1940 (Re-appointed).
(Vacated on being appointed a Judge of the Dacca High Court)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Radhabinod Pal, M.A., B.L. OFFG.
27th January 1941—2nd September 1942 (Vacated). Again
appointed on 1st December 1942—23rd June 1943 (Vacated)
The Honourable Mr. Justice Abraham Lewis Blank,
M.A., I.C.S., BAR-AT-LAW.
Officiating until confirmed on 8 th May 1944.
2nd February 1942—24th October 1950 (Resigned)
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das, B.A. (Cal.),
LL.B. (Lond.), BAR-AT-LAW.
1st December 1942—19th January 1949 (Vacated on being
appointed Chief Justice, Punjab High Court. Later, became
Chief Justice of India)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Earnest Charles Ormond,
BAR-AT-LAW.
13 th November 1944—(Vacated on being appointed a Judge
of the Dacca High Court, Pakistan)
139
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice William McCormick Sharpe,
D.S.O., B.A., I.C.S.
21st June 1945—15th November 1948 (Resigned)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice John Alfred Clough,
BAR-AT-LAW.
M.A.3 B.L.
Additional Judge until appointed permanent Judge from
13 th May 1948.
12th February 1947—29th April 1954 (Retired)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sashi Bhusan Sinha,
BAR-AT-LAW.
17th July 1945—7th September 1945 (Vacated). Again appointed
from 17th December 1945—23rd November 1948 (Died)
4th March 1948—26th May 1950 (Died)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rama Prosad Mookerjee,
4th January 1946—
M.A., B.L.
Additional Judge from 13th May 1948 until appointed
permanent Judge from 15th October 1948. Officiated as
Chief Justice on one occasion.
13th May 1948—30th December 1956 (Vacated)
(Vacated on being appointed a Judge of the Dacca High Court)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nirmal Chandra Chatterjee,
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Thomas Hobart Ellis,
M.A., I.C.S.
Additional Judge from 16th November 1944.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Noel Lanyon Hindley,
M.A., I.C.S., BAR-AT-LAW.
Acting Judge.
29th April 1946—24th August 1946 (Vacated)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jogendra Narayan Majumdar,
C.I.E., M.A., B.L., BAR-AT-LAW
An Additional Judge.
BAR-AT-LAW.
Additional Judge from 17th June 1948 until appointed
permanent Judge from 15th November 1948.
17th June 1948—3rd November 1949 (Resigned)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sambhu Nath Banerjee,
BAR-AT-LAW.
15th September 1948—30th October 1952 (Vacated)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kamal Chunder Chunder,
30th April 1946—30th August 1946 (Vacated). Again appointed on
11th November 1946—2nd October 1948 (Vacated)
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amir-ud-din Ahmed,
M.B.E., M.A., B.L.
6th January 1947—
(Vacated on being appointed a Judge
of the Dacca High Court)
140
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopendra Nath Das,
B.A. (Cal.), M.A. (Oxon), I.C.S., BAR-AT-LAW.
10th March 1948—4th January 1955 (Resigned)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subodh Ranjan Das Gupta,
BAR-AT-LAW.
Additional Judge from 3rd January 1949 until appointed
permanent Judge from 18th January 1950.
3rd January 1949—21st July 1957 (Vacated
on being appointed Chief Justice, Mysore High Court)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prasanta Bihari Mukherjee,
BAR-AT-LAW.
Additional Judge from 3rd January 1949 until appointed
permanent Judge from 23rd January 1950.
3rd January 1940—
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amal Kumar Sarkar,
BAR-AT-LAW.
Additonal Judge from 25th January 1949 until appointed
25th January 1949—2nd March 1957 (Vacated
on being appointed Judge of the Supreme Court of India)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jyoti Prakash Mitter,
B.A. (Oxon), BAR-AT-LAW.
Additional Judge from 11th February 1949 until appointed
11th February 1949—27th December 1961 (Retired)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pramatha Nath Mitra,
B.L.
Acting Judge.
15th March 1949—1st January 1950 (Resigned)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Braja Kanta Guha,
B.A. (Cal.), I.C.S.
15th June 1949—3rd July 1960 (Resigned)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranadhir Singh Bachawat,
BAR-AT-LAW.
23rd January 1950—
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deep Narayan Sinha,
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paresh Nath Mookerjee,
M.A., LL.B.
20th November 1950—
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sailendra Nath Guha Ray,
I.C.S.
23rd May 1951—14th November 1959 (Resigned)
The Hon’bIe Mr. Justice Sisir Kumar Sen, M.A.
(Punjab), I.C.S.
12th May 1952—
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Renupada Mukherjee,
M.A., LL.B.
12th May 1952—1st December 1960 (Retired)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Debabrata Mookerjee,
M.A., LL.B.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopendra Krishna
Mitter, BAR-AT-LAW.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prokash Chandra Mallick,
M.A., LL.B.
9th June 1954—
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Panchkari Sarkar, M.A.,LL.B.
9th March 1955—1st February 1959 (Retired)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nirmal Kumar Sen, M.A., LL.B.
13th March 1957—
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kumar Datta,
BAR-AT-LAW.
BAR-AT-LAW.
3rd July 1950—
1st May 1957—
141
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Charan Law, BAR-ATLAW
16th December 1957—
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bimal Kumar Bhattacharya,
M.A,, LL.B., PH.D. (Lond.) BAR-AT-LAW.
Additional Judge from 16th December 1957 until
appointed permanent Judge from 17th March 1959.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Binayak Nath Banerjee,
M.A., LL.B.
Additional Judge from 17th March 1959 until
appointed permanent Judge from 1st March 1961.
17th March 1959—
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kamalesh Chandra Sen,
M.A., LL.B.
Additional Judge from 16th November 1959 until
appointed permanent Judge from 21st August 1961.
M.A., LL.B.
Additional Judge from 16th December 1957 until
appointed permanent Judge from 17th March 1959.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit Nath Ray, B.A. (Oxon), M.A.
(Cal), BAR-AT-LAW.
Additional Judge from 23rd December 1957 until
appointed permanent Judge from 23rd October 1959.
23rd December 1957—
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Purushottam Chatterjee,
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sankar Prosad Mitra,
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandra Narayan Laik,
M.A. (Cantab), BAR-AT-LAW.
Additional Judge from 23rd December 1957 until
appointed permanent Judge from 16th November 1959.
23rd December 1957—
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subodh Kumar Niyogi,
M.A., LL.B.,
Additional Judge from 17th March 1959 until
appointed permanent Judge from 3rd July 1960.
17th March 1959—
142
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dwijendra Nath Das Gupta,
M.A., LL.B.
Additional Judge from 16th November 1959 until
appointed permanent Judge from 27th December 1961.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amaresh Chandra Ray,
M.A., LL.B.
Additional Judge.
3rd July 1960—
M.A., LL.B.
Additional Judge.
21st August 1961—
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bijoyesh Mukherji, M.A., LL.B.
Additional Judge.
3rd October 1961—
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Mukherjea,
BAR-AT-LAW.
Additional Judge.
26th February 1962—
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amaresh Chandra Roy
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramendra Nath Dutt
3.7.1962
19.11.1962
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Sharma Sarkar
31.7.1968
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bibhutosh Banerjee
31.7.1968
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandra Narayan Layek
6.2.1963
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kr. Sen
8.11.1968
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashoke Ch. Sen
6.2.1963
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajoy Kr. Basu
8.11.1968
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. C. Mitra
6.2.1963
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amiya Pr. Das
2.4.1969
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Durga Das Basu
6.2.1963
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee
2.4.1969
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarapada Mukherjee
8.4.1963
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amiya Kr. Mookerjee
30.5.1969
18.9.1969
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kr. Das
24.2.1964
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Murari Mohan Dutt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aloke Chandra Gupta
24.2.1964
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. C. Barua
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Sadat Abdul Masud
24.2.1964
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. J. Sen Gupta
25.1.1971
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amal Krishna De
2.11.1971
2.11.1971
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. N. Sen
15.11.1965
6.4.1970
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sishir Kr. Mukherjee
30.5.1966
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salil Kr. Roy Chowdhury
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Bagchi
25.7.1966
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rabindra Nath Bhattacharya
15.11.1971
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. N. Chakravorty
25.7.1966
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salil Kr. Hazra
15.11.1971
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. C. Ghosh
25.7.1966
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kr. Jana
15.11.1971
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramendra Mohan Datta
16.2.1967
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachindra Kr. Bhattacharyya
15.11.1971
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kr. Dutt
16.2.1967
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. C. Mukerjee
18.2.1972
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. C. Talukder
8.5.1967
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. K. Chanda
18.2.1972
The Hon'ble Mr, Justice K. L. Roy
8.5.1967
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit Kr. Sarkar
14.8.1972
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. C. Deb
27.2.1968
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhamay Basu
14.8.1972
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sinha
27.2.1968
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amar Nath Banerjee
14.8.1972
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. K. Mitra
27.2.1968
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Debi Prasad Pal
5.3.1973
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Chakraborty
27.2.1968
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Kr. Sen
5.3.1973
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee
31.7.1968
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. N. Pyne
5.3.1973
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Kr. Basu
31.7.1968
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. P. Bhattacharjee
6.3.1973
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salil Dutta
31.7.1968
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hirendra Nath Sen
6.3.1973
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. K. Banerjee
31.7.1968
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. C. Roy
10.6.1974
143
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manash Nath Roy
10.6.1974
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prabir Kumar Mazumder
9.1.1984
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bimal Chandra Basak
10.6.1974
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Gopal Mukherjee
9.1.1984
3.2.1986
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Samir Kumar Mookherjee
9.1.1984
(on transfer)
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Umesh Chandra Banerjee
9.1.1984
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Bhattacharjee
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramkrishna Sharma
25.11.1974
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee
13.7.1984
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. N. Roy
23.12.1976
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee
13.7.1984
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. K. Banerjee
17.6.1977
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gobinda Ch. Chatterjee
13.7.1984
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Monoj Kumar Mukherjee
17.6.1977
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sankar Bhattacharyya
13.7.1984
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. C. Chakraverty
17.6.1977
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amarendra Ch. Sen Gupta
13.7.1984
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Padma Khastgir
17.6.1977
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Ranjan Ray
13.7.1984
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Monjula Bose
17.6.1977
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Ahmed
19.7.1984
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Chandra Majumder
8.12.1977
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Lilamoy Ghosh
20.12.1985
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. C. Chakraverty
8.12.1977
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nirendra Krishna Mitra
20.12.1985
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. N. Maitra
8.12.1977
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Monoranjan Mallick
20.12.1985
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jyotirmoyee Nag
8.12.1977
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Shekhar Ganguly
20.12.1985
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. M. Guha
13.1.1978
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amal Kr. Chatterjee
20.12.1985
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pratibha Bonnerjea
13.1.1978
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachi Kanta Hazari
17.1.1986
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. G. Choudhuri
1.6.1981
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushanta Chatterjee
17.1.1986
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitabha Dutta
1.6.1981
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shyamal Kr. Sen
17.1.1986
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Sanyal
1.6.1981
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohitosh Mazumdar
17.1.1986
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jyotirindra Nath Hore
1.1.1987
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhas Chandra Sen
144
23.11.1981
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Pal
28.1.1983
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khwaja Mohammad Yusuf
1.1.1987
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. N. Chaudhuri
28.1.1983
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Baboo Lall Jain
1.1.1987
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sukumar Chakravorty
9.1.1984
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dilip Kr. Basu
1.1.1987
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. P. Das Ghosh
9.1.1984
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit Kr. Nayak
1.1.1987
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta
9.1.1984
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyabrata Mitra
17.3.1987

Part 4 - Calcutta High Court

Transcription

Similar documents

Bubble Trouble

Public notice of Draw of Lots for Different Categories of House/Flats

UNP HYMN - University of Northern Philippines

Presentation on Bharat Electronics Limited

Print Details - North Point Yacht Sales

HON Has Lead Role In Extreme Makeover: Home Edition

c - The National Archives

VIEW Ordinance No. 069-05

History of the ADR Plan Guest Speaker

Handout Release V1.pmd - ServiceOntario