LAW AND THE LAWYERS

SECTION 1: GANDHI AS A LAW STUDENT

PREPARATION FOR ENGLAND

Gandhi passed matriculation examination in 1887. Exam used to be held in Ahmedabad and
Bombay. Gandhi being a poor Kathiawad student, he chose to go to a nearer and cheaper
centre in Ahmedabad. That was Gandhi’s first journey from Rajkot to Ahmedabad.
Gandhi’s family wanted him to continue his education in college. There were only two
colleges, located in Bombay and Bhavnagar. Gandhi chose to join Samaldas College in
Bhavnagar because it was cheaper. He did not find college to interest him due to how
difficult it was. As per Gandhi, the reason was due to his lack of knowledge rather than his
professors’ skills. He in fact says they were “First Rate” professors. Hence, at the end of first
term, he returned home.
Mavji Dave shrewd and learned brahmin was an old friend and advisor of Gandhi’s family.
He visited them during Gandhi’s vacation and enquired about his education. He advised
Gandhi to go to London and become a barrister if he wanted to become a Diwan. He said his
son Kevalram would help him acquire notes of introduction.
Gandhi loved the idea of putting a stop to his difficult college life but he preferred medicine.
Gandhi’s brother shot down the idea stating its no business of Vaishnavas to dissect dead
bodies.
Joshiji was not against the idea of medicine but it wouldn’t make a diwan out of Gandhi so
he did not prefer it. Gandhi’s elder brother was greatly exercised in his mind. Gandhi’s
mother did not like the idea of parting with him. She wanted to consult Uncle who was the
eldest in the family. Gandhi’s brother wanted to get Mr Lely’s help who was the
administrator of Porbander. Gandhi got ready to start off for Porbandar. It was a five days'
bullock-cart journey. He hired a bullock-cart as far as Dhoraji, and from Dhoraji I took a
camel in order to get to Porbandar a day quicker. He told his uncle everything, he said he
wouldn’t stand in his way but at the same time, couldn’t give his permission to go to a
distant land for he has his doubts. He hesitated to co-operate directly in Gandhi’s going to
England, which was, in his opinion, an irreligious act. Mr Lely asked Gandhi to first pass his
BA before any help can be given. Gandhi returned to Rajkot from Porbandar and reported
all that had happened. Joshji advised him to go even by incurring a debt if necessary. But
Gandhi’s mother was unwilling for she was scared he’d take to meat or wine. Becharji
Swami was originally a Modh Bania, he too was a family adviser like Joshiji. He said he’ll
have Gandhi take three vows to not touch wine, women and meat after which, Gandhi’s
mother gave her permission.
 Preparation for the Bar

As the Bar examinations did not require much study, Gandhiji did not feel pressed for time.
He therefore thought that he should not only be called to the Bar, but have some literary
degree as well. He also constantly worried about his weak English. Mr Lely’s words about
graduating first kept bothering him. He thus, inquired about the Oxford and Cambridge
University courses but gave up the idea of going to either of these places as it would have
meant greater expense and a much longer stay in England than he was prepared for. From
1888 to 1889, Gandhiji had enrolled himself as a student in the University College, London.
in the University College, London for courses in Indian law and jurisprudence.

Ultimately he decided to study for the London Matriculation on a friend’s suggestion if he

wanted to pass a difficult examination. It was a lot of work but it would be a great addition
to his general knowledge with not much cost. In spite of this, Latin and modern language
scared him but his friend informed him about the advantages of Latin in Roman Law and it’s
general benefit in having a better command over English Language. As for modern language,
Gandhi decided to do French in which he had some background. Gandhi joined a private
class and started preparing for the exam in 5 months. He became a dedicated student but
he still couldn’t handle Latin and French along with other subjects in the given time. He
especially had a hard time with Latin but he started to have a liking towards it. He decided
to let go of French and choose a new subject in the science group. He chose to do Heat and
light as he had done Chemistry in India. With much effort, he passed the exam.

Called but then?

There were two conditions which had to be fulfilled before a student was formally called to
the bar: 'keeping terms,' twelve terms equivalent to about three years; and passing
examinations. 'Keeping terms' meant attending at least six out of about twenty-four dinners
in a term. Eating did not mean actually partaking of the dinner, it meant reporting oneself at
the fixed hours and remaining present throughout the dinner. The cost of the dinner was
considered moderate. To Gandhi it was a matter of surprise that alcohol costs as much as
dinner if not more. Gandhi only ate bread, boiled potato and cabbage after acquiring a taste
for them. The dinner provided for the benchers used to be better than that of the students.
A Parsi student, who was also a vegetarian, and Gandhi applied, in the interests of
vegetarianism, for the vegetarian courses which were served to the benchers. The
application was granted, and they began to get fruits and other vegetables from the
benchers' table.
Two bottles of wine were allowed to each group of four, as Gandhi did not touch them, he
was ever in demand. And there was a 'grand night' in each term when extra wines, like
champagne, in addition to port and sherry, were served. Gandhi was especially on demand
on that 'grand night'. Gandhi could not understand how these dinners qualified the students
better for the bar. There was a time when only a few students used to attend these dinners
and thus there were opportunities for talks between them and the benchers, and speeches
were also made. These occasions helped to give them knowledge of the world with a sort of
polish and refinement, and also improved their power of speaking. This was not possible in
Gandhi’s time because benchers had their own seat. The institution had lost all meaning but
conservative England retained it nevertheless.
The curriculum of study was considered to be easy. Examinations were considered to
practically have no value. Exams were on Roman Law and Common Law. There were text
books prescribed but very few read them. Many passed Roman Law with notes in a couple
of weeks, and the Common Law in two or three months. Question papers were easy and
examiners were lenient. The percentage of passes in the Roman Law examination used to
be 95 to 99 and of those in the final examination 75 or even more. Examinations were held
four times in the year. Hence, was considered easy.
But Gandhi read all the text-books. Gandhi considered it fraud to not read these books. He
decided to read Roman Law in Latin. The Latin which he learned in the London Matriculation
helped him. And all this reading helped him in South Africa, where Roman Dutch is the
common law. The reading of Justinian gave him an upper hand in understanding the South
African law.
It took Gandhi nine months of hard work to read through the Common Law of England. For
Broom's Common Law, he took quite some time. Snell's Equity interested him but he found
it a hard to understand. White and Tudor's Leading Cases, from which certain cases were
prescribed, also interested Gandhi. He also read with interest Williams' and Edwards' Real
Property and Goodeve's Personal Property. Williams' book was like a novel to Gandhi.
Gandhi read Mayne’s Hindu Law on his return to India. Gandhi passed his examinations, was
called to the bar on the 10th of June 1891, and enrolled in the High Court on the 11th. On
the 12th he sailed for home.
Regardless, his study did not help reduce his helplessness and fear. He did not think he was
qualified to practise law.

My Helplessness

It was easy to be called but it was difficult to practise at the bar. Gandhi had read the laws,
but not learnt how to practise law. He had read 'Legal Maxims', but did not know how to
apply them in his profession,besides, he had learnt nothing at all of Indian law. He did not
know Hindu and Mahommedan Law. He had not learnt how to draft a plaint. He wondered
how the reputed barrister Pherozeshah Mehta could have learnt the art in England? He
wondered if he could even earn a living by the profession.

Gandhi’s friend suggested that he met Dada Bhai Naoroji, he did have a note of introduction
but found it ill-mannered to meet someone that great without a pressing reason. Gandhi
attended his addresses to gain some knowledge. He finally mustered up the courage to
present him the note of introduction. Dadabhai Naoroji welcomed his visit anytime for
advice. A friend recommended Gandhi to meet Mr. Frederick Pincutt. He was a
Conservative, but his affection for Indian students was pure and unselfish. He greeted
Gandhi as a friend. He advised Gandhi that common honesty and industry are enough to
enable him to make a living. On telling him about his reading, he asked Gandhi to read Kaye
and Malleson's history of the Mutiny of 1857 and Lavator's and Shemmelpennick's books on
physiognomy. The reading was difficult but Gandhi trusted his advice and landed in Bombay
from Assam.
 How I Began Life

Sea was rough in Bombay harbour like it usually is in the Arabian Sea in June and
July. Almost every passenger was sick except for Gandhi. The outer storm to Gandhi
was symbol of his inner self. Unlike the outer storm, his inner anguish didn’t leave
him undisturbed. Gandhi’s brother came to get him at the dock. He had already
made the acquaintance of Dr. Mehta and his elder brother, and he put up at his
house. Thus the acquaintance begun in England continued in India and became a
friendship between the two families.
Gandhi’s elder brother had high hopes for him. His high hope combined with his
simple nature, had attracted to him many friends, and through them he expected to
get Gandhi briefs.
The foreign voyage had divided the caste into two camps, one of which immediately
readmitted Gandhi, while the other was bent on keeping him out. To please the
former Gandhi’s brother took him to Nasik before going to Rajkot, gave him a bath in
the sacred river and on reaching Rajkot, gave a caste dinner
Gandhi planned to make changes in his children’s education. He wanted to make
them physically strong. Gandhi thought he’d make a good teacher to children.
Gandhi also introduced oatmeal and European clothes. This greatly increased
expenses. Gandhi wasn’t comfortable with starting practise in Rajkot because of
having to charge ten times a vakil’s fee with limited knowledge. He didn’t want to
fool his clients like that even if there were willing clients. Friends advised him to go
to Bombay and gain experience in the high court. He went and started a household
in Girgaum, but he couldn’t stay for more than 3 or 4 months because of increasing
expenses with no income. He had started disliking the barrister job and felt the
crushing sense of his responsibility.
 The First Case

In Bombay, Gandhi started his study of Indian Law and experiments in dietetics. A friend,
Virchand Gandhi helped him in dietetics. Gandhi’s brother was still busy trying to get Gandhi
briefs.
Gandhi found the study of Indian Law hard, he found Evidence Act easier but Civil Procedure
Code to be really. Virchand Gandhi was studying for the Solicitor's Examination and would
tell Gandhi all sorts of stories about barristers and vakils. He said it was common for
Barristers to vegetate for 5 or 7 years and Gandhi should consider himself lucky if he can get
by in 3 years’ time. He didn’t quite like having a barrister’s board outside while still
preparing to become one. He still was helpless and wasn’t confident about practising law.
Gandhi at this time took up Mami Bai’s case, he was asked to pay commission to the tout,
he emphatically declined even with all the pressure around him. He still got the case and
charged Rs 30.

He appeared on behalf of the defendants and had to cross examine the plaintiffs. He had a
nervous breakdown and couldn’t do anything. He told the agent he couldn’t conduct the
case and he better got Patel. Patel charged him Rs 50 and took up the case.
He rushed from the court, without knowing who won the case. He decided that he would
not conduct another case till he was confident, thus, he didn’t conduct another case till he
went to South Africa. This was not a decision of virtue but a decision of necessity.

He had another case in Bombay, he had to draft a memorial. A poor Mussalman’s land was
confiscated, Gandhi thought the case was weak but drafted the memorial regardless, this
gave Gandhi a sense of confidence.

Gandhi could do well be drafting memorial for free but that would be hard on him
financially and so, he decided to teach. His English was good and he would’ve enjoyed
teaching in some matriculation school. He came across an advertisement and went for the
interview, he was rejected. Gandhi and his brother decided that they would leave Bombay
for Rajkot and Gandhi can find some drafting work. Breaking up the household in Bombay
would save money too, they also already had a household in Rajkot so there was no extra
expense.

Gandhi attended High Court trials everyday but found them boring a dozed off, he felt less
guilty because othersdozed off too. He came to think that it was fashionable to doze off in
the court.
Gandhi’s advice to the present barristers is to walk and save money. This would be a
considerable benefit to health and finance. Gandhi said he never took the tram or carriage
even though he lived in Girgaum, this was the secret to his good health.

The First Shock

After settling in Rajkot, Gandhi got along by drafting memorials. He owed this to his
brother’s influence and not his ability. He had to give up on his principle of not giving
commission. In Bombay commissions had to be paid to touts, here they had to be paid to
vakils who briefed you; and that here as in Bombay all barristers, without exception, paid a
percentage of their fees as commission. Gandhi’s brother argued that he was in partnership
with another vakil. He shall always be inclined to make over to Gandhi all their cases with
which Gandhi can possibly deal, and if he refused to pay a commission to his partner, it
would embarrass him. Because Gandhi and his brother were in a joint partnership, he gets
an automatic share in Gandhi’s fees but that’s not the case with his partner and he’s
definitely get a commission from another barrister. Gandhi’s states that he’s never given or
received commission in any other situation.
Gandhi’s brother had been secretary and adviser to Ranasaheb of Porbandar before he was
installed on his Gandhi. Gandhi’s brother was charged with giving a wrong advice. This
matter had gone to a Political agent who wasn’t particularly in good terms with his brother
but he had an acquaintance with Gandhi when in England. Gandhi’s brother wanted Gandhi
to make use of this influence and put in a good word. Though Gandhi was not persuaded by
his brother, but he had to go because of his loyalty towards his brother.

The Political Agent owned the acquaintance, but he was wary of Gandhi’s intentions. After
Gandhi stated his cause, the Sahib clearly stated that he’ll hear anything more only form the
due process. Gandhi’s continued insistence angered the Sahib. He called his peon to take
Gandhi out. Gandhi felt insulted and stated that he’d take action against his behaviour if he
doesn’t apologize.

The Sahib did not mind his threats and asked him to proceed anyway he wanted

Gandhi did not proceed against the Sahib. Sir Pherozeshah Mehta also advised against
proceeding against the Sahib. Gandhi decided to never put himself in such a position ever
again and never again will he try to exploit a friendship. This shock changed the course of
Gandhi’s life.
 PREPARING FOR SOUTH AFRICA

Gandhi understood his fault but did not think the Sahib’s reaction was justified. He later
understood that the Sahib was an impatient man in general.. He learnt of the petty politics
of the country. Kathiawad, being a conglomeration of small States, naturally had its rich crop
of politicals. Petty intrigues between States, and intrigues of officers for power were the
order of the day. Princes were always at the mercy of others and ready to lend their ears to
sycophants. Even the sahib's peon had to be cajoled, and the sahib's shirastedar was more
than his master, as he was his eyes, his ears and his interpreter. The shirastedar's will was
law, and his income was always reputed to be more than the sahib's. This may have been an
exaggeration, but he certainly lived beyond his salary.
This atmosphere appeared to be poisonous, and how to remain unaffected was Gandhi’s
worry. If only Gandhi could secure some other work, he’d leave.

I had some work in Porbander in the shape of securing more powers for the prince. He had
to fight the cause of high rent demanded from the Mers. Gandhi succeeded in gaining the
Rana few powers but no relief for the Mers.

Gandhi thought justice was not done to his clients, but he had no means to secure it.

A Meman firm from Porbandar wrote to Gandhi’s brother making an offer to have Gandhi
there to advice on a claim of £40,000.
They discussed the proposition. On Sheth Abdul Karim Jhaveri’s advice, who was a partner
of the firm in question, Gandhi decided to go. He only had to only councel and correspond in
English. All the expenses were to be taken care off too. His service was required for one year
and £105 was paid as compensation

He was basically going there as a servant of the firm but Gandhi wanted to leave India and
the money would help in the household expenses. And so he left for South Africa.

ARRIVING IN NATAL

Gandhi was accustomed to travelling and his mother was no more so he felt no wrench of
separation like last time.

He only felt the pang of parting with his wife and child. He had only just started becoming a
teacher to her and he thought it was necessary to be with her. But the attraction of South
Africa rendered the separation bearable.
Gandhi was to get his passage through the agent of Dada Abdulla and Company. But no
berth was available on the boat, and if he did not sail then, he should be stranded in
Bombay. The agent tried their best to get him a first-class seat but no berth was available.
Gandhi got on to the boat and met the chief officer himself who offered the extra berth in
his cabin. In April1893 he set forth full of zest to try his luck in South Africa.
They reached Lamu in 13 days. He became friends with the captain and they started playing
chess together. The captain taught him how to play but Gandhi never carried his liking
beyond the boat or his knowledge beyond the moves of the pieces. After Lamu the next port
was Mombasa and then Zanzibar. The halt here was a long one—eight or ten days — and
they then changed to another boat. As they had to remain in this port for a week, Gandhi
took rooms in the town and saw a good deal by wandering about the neighbourhood.
Gandhi exclaimed that only Malabar can give any idea of the luxuriant vegetation of
Zanzibar. The next call was at Mozambique and then they reached Natal towards the close
of May.

SOME EXPERIENCES

Abdulla Sheth was there to receive Gandhi. There, he observed Indians were not well
respected. Abdulla sheth was also not treated well and Gandhi felt this. Gandhi was looked
at with curiosity because of his odd European Indian wear.

Gandhi was taken to the firm's quarters and shown into the room set apart for me, next to
Abdulla Sheth's. He did not understand Gandhi and did not a have a good first impression of
Gandhi. He did not know what work he could give Gandhi because he wasn’t trustworthy
yet and any work he could give, could be done by his clerks.

Abdulla Sheth was not educated but was very experienced. He knew he was not very smart
but he had learnt sufficient English for carrying on business. The Indians held him in very
high esteem. His firm was then the biggest, or at least one of the biggest, of the Indian firms.
With all these advantages he had one disadvantage — he was by nature suspicious.
He was proud of Islam and loved to discourse of Islamic philosophy. Though he did not know
Arabic his acquaintance with the Holy Koran and Islamic literature was good. Gandhi
acquired some practical knowledge of Islam through him. He also had long religious
discourses. On the second or third day of Gandhi’s arrival, Abdulla Seth took him to see the
Durban court. There he introduced Gandhi to several people and seated Gandhi next to his
attorney. The Magistrate asked Gandhi to take off his turban. This he refused to do and left
the court.
Abdulla Sheth explained to Gandhi why some Indians were required to take off their
turbans. Mussalmans were allowed to keep their turban but other Indians had to take theirs
off. Gandhi observed that Indians were of three types. One was that of Mussalman
merchants, who would call themselves 'Arabs'. Another was that of Hindu, and yet another
of Parsi, clerks. But by far the largest class was that composed of Tamil, Telugu and North
Indian indentured and freed labourers. The indentured labourers were those who went to
Natal on an agreement to serve for five years, and came to be known there as girmitiyas
from girmit, which was the corrupt form of the English word 'agreement'. The other three
classes had none but business relations with this class. Englishmen called them 'coolies', and
as the majority of Indians belonged to the labouring class, all Indians were called 'coolies', or
'samis'. 'Sami' is a Tamil suffix occurring after many Tamil names, and it is nothing else than
the Sanskrit swami, meaning a master. Indians often mocked this usage of the Englishmen.

Gandhi was hence known as a 'coolie barrister'. The merchants were known as 'coolie
merchants'. The original meaning of the word 'coolie' was thus forgotten, and it became a
common appellation for all Indians.

Gandhi decided to wear an English hat instead of the turban. But Abdulla Sheth disapproved
of the idea. He said he’d pass for a waiter if he did so. There was practical wisdom,
patriotism and a little bit of narrowness in this advice. The wisdom was apparent, and he
would not have insisted on the Indian turban except out of patriotism; the slighting
reference to the waiter betrayed a kind of narrowness. Amongst the indentured Indians
there were three classes — Hindus, Mussalmans and Christians. The last were the children
of indentured Indians who became converts to Christianity. They wore the English costume,
and the majority of them earned their living by service as waiters in hotels. Abdulla Sheth's
criticism of the English hat was with reference to this class. It was considered degrading to
serve as a waiter in a hotel. Gandhi wrote to the press about the incident and defended the
wearing of my turban in the court. The question was very much discussed in the papers,
which described Gandhi as an 'unwelcome visitor'. Thus, the incident gave Gandhi an
unexpected advertisement in South Africa within a few days of his arrival there. It was a
controversial topic.
 ON MY WAY TO PRETORIA

Gandhi made the acquaintance of The Court Interpreter, Mr. Paul, Mr. Subhan Godfrey,
then a teacher under the Protestant Mission, and father of Mr. James Godfrey, who, as a
member of the South African Deputation, visited India in 1924. He also made the
acquaintance of Parsi Rustomji and Adamji Miyakhan about the same time.

The firm received a letter from their lawyer asking Abdulla Sheth to come himself for the
case to Pretoria as a representative.
Abdulla Sheth asked Gandhi to go instead and had the clerks explain the case to Gandhi.
The case involved Book Keeping and knowledge of Accounting. He bought a book on
accounts and started studying accounts which gave him some confidence. He then prepared
to leave for Pretoria

Sheth advised Gandhi to not stay with their Memon friends due confidentiality of the case
matter. Gandhi said he’d stay wherever his lawyer arranges or he’d find a place himself.

Gandhi wanted to make friends with the other party regardless and expressed his desire to
settle the case out of court. Sheth Tyeb Haji Khan Muhammad was a near relative of Abdulla
Sheth.
The mention of a probable settlement somewhat startled the Sheth but he had started to
trust Gandhi. Sheth observed that Tyeb Sheth is not a man to consent to a settlement easily
and it could cause problem for them later.

Gandhi assured him that he would only suggest the idea to Tyeb Sheth

On the seventh or eighth day after his arrival, Gandhi left Durban for Pretoria.

FIRST DAY IN PRETORIA

The attorney had sent no one to receive Gandhi. Gandhi feared that no hotel would accept
him.
Gandhi had a constant fear of being insulted. He was afraid to even ask the ticket collector
for guidance to a nearby hotel. A Black American offered help for he knew an American
friend who ran a Hotel business. Gandhi went to Johnston's Family Hotel. After the man
spoke to Mr. Johnston, the latter agreed to accommodate Gandhi for the night, on condition
that Gandhi should have his dinner in his room. He assured him that he had no colour
prejudice but his European friends might.
While waiting for his dinner in his room, Mr Johnston appeared and asked Gandhi to join the
others for dinner in the dining room. He had asked the other guests would they mind if
Gandhi joined, and no one protested.

Next morning Gandhi met the attorney, Mr. A. W. Baker. Abdulla Sheth had given Gandhi
some description of him. He received Gandhi well and stated his requirements. He needed
no extra help in the case, thus, he required Gandhi to get necessary information and
communicate with the clients. Because of the racism present, he couldn’t find a room for
Gandhi but he knew a poor woman who would take him in for extra income. She accepted
him as a boarder for 35 shillings a week. Gandhi next went to see the friend to whom Dada
Abdulla had given him a note. From him Gandhi learnt more about the hardships of Indians
in South Africa.

PREPARATION FOR THE CASE

The year's stay in Pretoria was Gandhi’s most valuable experience. He acquired experience
in public work, true knowledge of legal work and the religious spirit within him became a
living force. Here he learnt the things that a junior barrister learns in a senior barrister's
chamber, and here he also gained confidence that he should not after all fail as a lawyer. It
was likewise here that he learnt the secret of success as a lawyer.
Dada Abdulla's was no small case. The suit was for £40,000. Arising out of business
transactions, it was full of intricacies of accounts. Part of the claim was based on promissory
notes, and part on the specific performance of promise to deliver promissory notes. The
defence was that the promissory notes were fraudulently taken and lacked sufficient
consideration. There were numerous points of fact and law in this intricate case.
Both parties had engaged the best attorneys and counsel. Gandhi had a fine opportunity of
studying their work. The preparation of the plaintiffs case for the attorney and the facts in
support of his case had been entrusted to Gandhi. He learnt a lot from seeing what was
accepted and what was not.
He took great interest in the case and improved his translation skills. The preparation of the
case was Gandhi’s primary interest and not religion. Reading of law and looking up law
cases, when necessary, had always a prior claim on his time. As a result, he acquired such a
grasp of the facts of the case that even the parties involved did not have. He recalled Mr.
Pincutt's advice — facts are three-fourths of the law. In a certain case, Gandhi observed
that, though justice was on the side of his client, the law seemed to be against him. He
approached Mr. Leonard for help. He also felt that the facts of the case were very strong. He
exclaimed, 'Gandhi, I have learnt one thing, and it is this, that if we take care of the facts of a
case, the law will take care of itself. Let us dive deeper into the facts of this case.' He asked
Gandhi to study the case further and then see him again. On a re-examination of the facts I
saw them in an entirely new light, and Gandhi hit upon an old South African case bearing on
the point. They were sure of winning the case.

Facts mean truth, and once we adhere to truth, the law comes to our aid naturally. Gandhi
saw that the facts of Dada Abdulla's case made it very strong indeed, and that the law was
bound to be on his side. But he also saw that the litigation, if it were persisted in, would ruin
the plaintiff and the defendant who were relatives and both belonged to the same city. No
one knew how long the case might go on. The case might end up benefiting no one in the
long run. Both, therefore, desired an immediate termination of the case, if possible.
He convinced Tyeb Sheth to consider arbitration. The lawyer's fees were so rapidly
mounting up that they were enough to devour all the resources of the clients. The case
occupied so much of their attention that they had no time left for any other work. In the
meantime mutual ill-will was steadily increasing. Gandhi became disgusted with the
profession. As lawyers, the counsels on both sides were bound to rake up points of law in
support of their own clients. Gandhi saw that the winning party never recovers all the costs
incurred. Under the Court Fees Regulation there was a fixed scale of costs to be allotted as
between party and party, the actual costs as between attorney and client being very much
higher. Gandhi tried his best to bring about a compromise.
At last Tyeb Sheth agreed. An arbitrator was appointed, the case was argued before him,
and Dada Abdulla won.
Immediate execution of the award would be problematic for Tyber Sheth, it would be
impossible for Tyeb Sheth to meet the whole of the awarded amount, and there was an
unwritten law among the Porbandar Memans living in South Africa that death should be
preferred to bankruptcy. It was impossible for Tyeb Sheth to pay down the whole sum of
about £ 37,000 and costs. He meant to pay not a pie less than the amount, and he did not
want to be declared bankrupt. There was only one way. Dada Abdulla should allow him to
pay in moderate instalments. He was equal to the occasion and granted Tyeb Sheth
instalments spread over a very long period. Both were happy over the result. Gandhi
realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder. The lesson was
so indelibly burnt into Gandhi, that a large part of his time during the twenty years of his
practice as a lawyer was occupied in bringing about private compromises of hundreds of
cases.
 MAN PROPOSES, GOD DISPOSES

Gandhi went back to Durban and began to make preparations for his return home. Abdulla
Sheth gave a farewell party in his honour at Sydenham.
Gandhi found a new article titled “Indian Franchise”. It was with reference to the Bill then
before the House of Legislature, which sought to deprive the Indians of their right to elect
members of the Natal Legislative Assembly. Gandhi inquired Abdulla Sheth about it. He said
he couldn’t possibly know anything about things that didn’t affect his trade. Gandhi
enquired about the Indians born and educated in South Africa and if they wouldn’t help.
They were under the thumb of white clergymen who were in turn under the thumb of the
Government.
This made Gandhi question the nature of Christianity. Did they cease to be Indians because
they had become Christians?
Gandhi was hesitant of discussing it right before his leave. Sheth Abdulla stated that
franchise doesn’t quite have the value Gandhi attaches to it. A guest suggested that Gandhi
stay longer and lead their fight against the bill.
Sheth brought about the matter of fees, this pained Gandhi and he said there is no need of
fees in public work. Though fees was not necessary, the work was going to need funds. It
was decided that money will come some way, Gandhi decided to stay for another month
and started outlining his plan for campaign.
Thus God laid the foundations of Gandhi’s life in South Africa and sowed the seed of the
fight for national self-respect.

SETTLED IN NATAL

Sheth Haji Muhammad Haji Dada was regarded as the foremost leader of the Indian
community in Natal in 1893. Financially Sheth Abdulla Haji Adam was the chief though. A
meeting was held under his presidentship at Abdulla Sheth’s house, and it was decided to
oppose Franchise Bill.
Volunteers were enrolled. Natal-born Indians, that is, mostly Christian Indian youths, had
been invited to attend this meeting. Mr. Paul, the Durban Court Interpreter, and Mr. Subhan
Godfrey, Headmaster of a mission school, were present, and they were responsible for
bringing in Christian youths.

Many of the local merchants were of course enrolled, noteworthy among them being
Sheths Dawud Muhammad, Muhammad Kasam Kamruddin, Adamji Miyakhan, A.
Kolandavellu Pillai, C. Lachhiram, Rangasami Padiachi, and Amad Jiva, Parsi Rustomji was of
course there. From among clerks were Messrs, Manekji, Joshi, Narsinhram and other
employees of Dada Abdulla & Co. and other big firms. In face of the calamity that had
overtaken the community, all distinctions such as high and low, small and great, master and
servant, Hindus, Mussalmans, Parsis, Christians, Gujaratis, Madrasis, Sindhis, etc. were
forgotten. All were alike the children and servants of the motherland.
The Bill had already passed, or was about to pass, its second reading. In the speeches the
fact that Indians had expressed no opposition to the stringent Bill, was argues as proof of
their unfitness for the franchise.
They despatched a telegram to the Speaker of the Assembly, the Premiere, Sir John
Robinson and Mr Escombe requesting them to postpone further discussion of the Bill. The
Speaker promptly replied that discussion of the Bill would-be postponed for two days. This
gladdened our hearts.
The petition to be presented to the Legislative Assembly was drawn up. They had to obtain
as many signatures to it as possible in one night. The volunteers with a knowledge of English
and several others sat up the whole night. Mr. Arthur, an old man known for his calligraphy,
wrote the principal copy. Five copies were thus got ready simultaneously. Merchant
volunteers went out in their own carriages or carriages whose hire they had paid, to obtain
signatures to the petition. This was accomplished in quick time and the petition was
despatched. The newspapers published it with favourable comments. It was discussed in the
House. Partisans of the Bill offered a defence, an admittedly lame one, in reply to the
arguments advanced in the petition. The Bill, however, was passed.
They knew this was a foregone conclusion, but the agitation had infused new life into the
community and had brought home to them the conviction that the community was one and
indivisible, and that it was as much their duty to fight for its political rights as for its trading
rights.
Lord Ripon', the Secretary of State for the Colonies was also sent a petition. Gandhi put
great effort into the petition. He read all the literature available on the subject. His
argument cantered round a principle and an expedience. He argued that they had a right to
the franchise in Natal, as we had a kind of franchise in India. He argued that it was expedient
to retain it, as the Indian population capable of using the franchise was very small.
Ten thousand signatures were obtained in the course of a fortnight. Especially competent
volunteers had to be selected for the work, as it had been decided not to take a single
signature without the signatory fully understanding the petition. Gandhi gives special
mention to Sheth Dawud Muhammad, Rustomji, Adamji Miyakhan and Amod Jiva. Dawud
Sheth kept going about in his carriage the whole day. And it was all a labour of love, not one
of them asking for even his out- of-pocket expenses. Dada Abdulla's house became at once a
a public office. A number of educated friends helped this cause.

The petition was at last submitted. A thousand copies had been printed for circulation and
distribution. It acquainted the Indian public for the first time with conditions in Natal.
Gandhi sent copies to all the newspapers and publicists he knew.
The Times of India, in a leading article on the petition, strongly supported the Indian
demands. Copies were sent to journals and publishers in England representing different
parties. The London Times supported our aims, and we began to entertain hope of the Bill
being vetoed.
Gandhi couldn’t leave Natal. The Indian friends surrounded him on all sides and importuned
him to remain there permanently. Gandhi had made up his mind not to stay at public
expense.. He promised to stay if he was guaranteed legal work.

He refused the money offered to him from the public money and he can’t have money paid
to him for making others work. He also states that this love they have for him might not
endure the hard things he might have to say in the future. He wasn’t a white barrister so he
was doubtful of the court’s acceptance too.

20 merchants gave Gandhi retainers for one year for their legal work. Besides this, Dada
Abdulla purchased him the necessary furniture in lieu of a purse he had intended to give
Gandhi on his departure.
Thus Gandhi settled in Natal.

COLOR BAR

The Law Society of Natal set out to persuade the Supreme Court to act in contravention of
the principle of blindness to exterior and to belie its symbol.
Gandhi applied for admission as an advocate of the Supreme Court, he held a certificate of
admission from the Bombay High Court. He had to deposit the English certificate to Bombay
High Court. It was necessary to attach two certificates of character to the application for
admission, and thinking that these would carry more weight if given by Europeans, Gandhi
secured them from two well-known European merchants whom he knew through Sheth
Abdulla. The application had to be presented through a member of the bar, and as a rule the
Attorney General presented such applications without fees. Mr. Escombe, who was a legal
adviser to Messrs. Dada Abdulla and Co., was the Attorney General. He called on him, and
he willingly consented to present his application.
The Law opposed his application for admission. One of their objections was that the original
English certificate was not attached to my application. But the main objection was to his
color. Natal owed its growth to European enterprise, and therefore it was necessary that the
European element should predominate in the bar. If coloured people were admitted, they
might gradually outnumber the Europeans.

The Law Society had engaged a distinguished lawyer to support their opposition. As he was
connected with Dada Abdulla and Co., he told Gandhi he might be some colonial born
adventurer with no original certificate and his conduct certificate has not value. He stated
that Abdulla Sheth’s certificate might be accepted

This talk enraged Gandhi, but he restrained his feelings. What has my admission as advocate
to do with birth and antecedents? How could someone’s birth, whether humble or
objectionable, be used against them? These were his questions.

The Law Society opposed the application before the Supreme Court after submission of
Sheth Abdulla’s affidavit without calling Mr Escombe to reply. Finally,The Chief Justice
admitted Gandhi and stated that only a false affidavit can lead to prosecution if proved.

After swearing in, Gandhi was forced to remove his turban. Gandhi thought he needed to
save his strength for bigger battles and removed his turban.

Sheth Abdulla and other friends did not like his submission, Gandhi argued that, 'When at
Rome do as the Romans do.' If the same objection was in India, he would protest he said. He
saw the beauty in compromise. He saw in later life that this spirit was an essential part of
Satyagraha. It has often meant endangering his life and incurring the displeasure of friends.
The opposition of the Law Society gave Gandhi another advertisement in South Africa. Most
of the newspapers condemned the opposition and accused the Law Society of jealousy. The
advertisement, simplified his work.

SETTLED IN BOMBAY?

In the year 1901 Gandhiji returned to India with the intention of permanently settling down
here. On Shri Gokhale's advice he decided to settle down in Bombay, practise at the bar and
help him in public work but he was not confident enough
He decided to work in Rajkot. Kevalram Mavji Dave gave him three briefs. Two of them
were appeals before the Judicial Assistant to the Political Agent in Kathiawad and one was
an original case in Jamnagar. This last was rather important. On telling Kevalram that he was
not confident of winner, Kevalram asked him to only do his best and not worry about
winning.
Gandhi won the case and gained some confidence. He had no fear about the appeals, which
were successful. All this inspired a hope in him that after all he might not fail even in
Bombay.
The Judicial Assistant's court was peripatetic. He was constantly touring, and vakils and their
clients had to follow him wherever he moved his camp. The vakils would charge more
whenever they had to go out of headquarters and so the clients had naturally to incur
double the expenses. The appeal was to be heard at Veraval where plague was raging.
Gandhi put up in a deserted dharmashala at some distance from the town. But the poor
clients were at God’s mercy.
Kevalram Dave suggested he come back to Bombay and he’d take care of finding work and
expenses. Gandhi was destined to do public work and so his move to Bombay was essential.
Gandhi was expecting remittance from Natal, after he received it in 2 weeks, he moved to
Bombay. He stayed in Payne, Gilbert and Sayani's offices.
He had hired chambers in the Fort and a house in Girgaum. His second son Manilal, who had
already been through an acute attack of smallpox some years back, had a severe attack of
typhoid, combined with pneumonia and signs of delirium.
Manilal was restored to health, Gandhi decided that the Girgaum house was not habitable.
It was damp and ill- lighted. So, in consultation with Shri Ravishankar Jagjivan he decided to
hire a bungalow in Santa Cruz which was the cleanest

Gandhi prospered in his profession. His South African clients often entrusted him with some
work, and it was enough to enable Gandhi to pay his way.
He had not yet secured any work in the High Court, but he attended the 'moot'. He made a
point of attending the hearing of cases in the High Court.

He made use of the High Court library and made fresh acquaintances and was confident of
securing some work. But Gokhale seemed to have some other plans and kept Gandhi
acquainted of his work.

Just when he seemed to be settling down, he received an unexpected cable from South
Africa: 'Chamberlain expected here. Please return immediately.' he remembered his
promise and prepared for South Africa immediately.

Some Reminiscences of The Bar

Gandhi never resorted to untruth in his profession and most of his legal practice was in the
interest of public work.
As a student Gandhi had heard that the lawyer's profession was a liar's profession. But
Gandhi had no intention of earning either position or money by lying.
A lot of time, Gandhi knew that his opponents had tutored their witnesses, and if he did the
same, he’d definitely win but he always resisted the temptation.

In one of his cases, Gandhi suspected that his client had deceived him. Gandhi would only
take truthful cases. Whether his client won or lost, he expected nothing more nor less than
my fees.
He warned every client that he’d take no false cases or coach witnesses. Some of his clients
would keep their clean cases for Gandhi, and take the doubtful ones elsewhere.
There was one case which proved a severe trial. It was a case of highly complicated accounts
and had been a prolonged one. It had been heard in parts before several courts. Ultimately
the book-keeping portion of it was entrusted by the court to the arbitration of some
qualified accountants. The award was entirely in favour of his client, but the arbitrators had
committed an error in calculation which, however small, was serious, inasmuch as an entry
which ought to have been on the debit side was made on the credit side. The opponents
had opposed the award on other grounds. When the senior counsel became aware of the
error, he was of opinion that their client was not bound to admit it. He was clearly of
opinion that no counsel was bound to admit anything that went against his client's interest.
I said we ought to admit the error.
The senior counsel said he’d have nothing to do with the case if the error was admitted.
Gandhi was prepared to argue the case if the client agreed, the client trusted Gandhi and
said if they were bound to lose, let it be so. The senior counsel again warned Gandhi, pitied
him for his obduracy, but congratulated him nevertheless.

Sharp Practice?

Gandhi had doubts about his fitness for doing full justice to the case. As soon as he referred
to the error in the accounts, one of the judges asked if it was not sharp practise.
Gandhi was angered by this accusation

Gandhi asked the judge to hear him out. The judge apologized for interrupting before asking
Gandhi to continue.
The Court heard him patiently, and he was able to convince the judges that the discrepancy
was due entirely to inadvertence. They therefore did not cancel the whole award.
The opposing counsel felt confident because of the error but the court was convinced that
error was rectifiable. The counsel laboured hard to attack the award but the judge was on
Gandhi’s side. The judge decided that If there were no more issues other than the error, the
court wouldn’t decide to order a fresh hearing.
And so the counsel's objection was overruled. The Court either confirmed the award, with
the error rectified, or ordered the arbitrator to rectify the error.
Gandhi was confirmed in his conviction that it was not impossible to practise law without
compromising truth.
Although this is the case, even truthfulness in the practice of the profession cannot cure it of
the fundamental defect that vitiates it.

CLIENTS TURNED CO WORKERS

The distinction between the legal practice in Natal and that in the Transvaal was that in
Natal; a barrister, while being an advocate, could also practise as an attorney; whereas in
the Transvaal, as in Bombay, a barrister had the right of election whether he would practise
as an advocate or as an attorney. So, while in Natal Gandhi was admitted as an advocate, in
the Transvaal Gandhi was admitted as an attorney. On one occasion, while Gandhi was
conducting a case before a magistrate in Johannesburg, he discovered that my client had
deceived him. So without any argument Gandhi asked the magistrate to dismiss the case. He
rebuked his client for bringing a false case to me. The client admitted his mistake. This made
Gandhi’s work easier. His devotion to truth enhanced his reputation amongst the members
of the profession, and in spite of the handicap of colour, he was able to win even their
affection.
He tried to never conceal his ignorance from his clients or his colleagues. Whenever he
didn’t know something, he would advise his client to consult some other counsel, or if he
preferred to stick to him, he would ask the client to let him seek the assistance of senior
counsel. This frankness gained his clients’ trust. This helped him in his public work too.

Trust was necessary for public work in South Africa too. Even when Gandhi advised people
to suffer imprisonment for the sake of their rights, many of them accepted the advice, this
was owing to the trust they had on Gandhi. Hundreds of clients became friends and real co-
workers in public service, and their association sweetened life full of difficulties for Gandhi.

HOW A CLIENT WAS SAVED

Parsi Rustomji was Gandhi’s client and co-worker. He trusted Gandhi enough to seek his
advice on private domestic matters.

Though he kept Gandhi informed of most of his affairs, he kept back one thing. He was a
large importer of goods from Bombay and Calcutta, and he resorted to smuggling. But as he
was on the best terms with customs officials, no one was inclined to suspect him. In
charging duty, they used to take his invoices on trust. Some might even have connived at
the smuggling.

He pleaded Gandhi for his help. Gandhi advised him to confess before the government.
Inquiry revealed that the smuggling had been going on for a long time, but the actual
offence detected involved a trifling sum. We went to his counsel but Gandhi did not know
the counsel personally. He said the case will be tried by a jury, and a Natal jury will be the
last to acquit an Indian.
Parsi Rustomji said he’d like to be guided by Mr. Gandhi's advice in this case. Gandhi didn’t
think the case needed to be taken to court at all. It rests with Customs Officer to prosecute
him or let him go, and he in turn will have to be guided by the Attorney- General. Gandhi
was prepared to meet both. Gandhi proposed he pay the penalty but if they want to
prosecute, then he must be prepared to go to jail. Gandhi advised him that the real penance
lies in resolving never to smuggle again.
Parsi Rustomji didn’t take the advice well. His courage failed him. His name and fame were
at stake.
Gandhi met the Customs Officer and fearlessly apprised him of the whole affair. He also
promised to place all the books at his disposal and told him how penitent Parsi Rustomji was
feeling.
The Customs Officer advise Gandhi to use all his persuasion with the Attorney General.
Gandhi said he’d be grateful if this was not taken to court.
Having got him to promise this, Gandhi met with the Attorney-General. He believed Gandhi
had held back nothing.
The case against Parsi Rustomji was compromised. He was to pay a penalty equal to twice
the amount he had confessed to having smuggled. Rustomji reduced to writing the facts of
the whole case, got the paper framed and hung it up in his office to serve as a perpetual
reminder to his heirs and fellow merchants.

SECTION III

THE TRAILS OF GANDHI

Before the court in 1907

Gandhiji formed a deputation to make representations in regard to the repeal of Peace

Preservation Ordinance. The Peace Preservation Ordinance, although framed to keep out
of the colony dangerous characters was being used mainly to prevent British Indians
from entering the Transvaal.
The deputation failed in its efforts to obtain redress,the Indians led by Gandhiji organized an
agitation in England and succeeded in enlisting sympathy of many Englishmen. Then an
influential committee with Lord Ampthill as President was formed to guard over Indian
interests.
Gandhiji's appeal to Lord Elgin and the efforts of the British committee in London were
successful only to the extent of securing a declaration that the Ordinance would be hung
up until the matter had received the consideration of the Transvaal Parliament. Soon a
constitutional Government was formed and the new measures received the Royal Assent
and became Law. The Indian community in Transvaal, seeing that efforts were all in vain,
determined to fight and risk the consequences of disobedience. Soon a news came that a
number of the leaders
of two Asiatic Communities were warned to appear before the Magistrate, Gandhiji was one
of the those arrested and brought to trail.
When he attended at the British Criminal Court, he was asked whether he held duly issued
registration certificates and upon receiving replies in the negative, he was promptly arrested
and charged under Section 8 of Act 2 of 1907. Superintendent Vernon gave evidence as to
the arrest and Gandiji asked no question but went into the box . He hoped the court would
grant him indulgence to make a short explanation seeing that he was an officer of the court.
But the Magistrate (Mr. Jordan) didnt think that there was any need for it as law is there
and all his duty is to deal with a legal evidence, Gandhiji agreed with it and the
Magistrate then ordered Mr Gandhi to leave the country in 48 hours.

Before the court in 1908

As Gandhiji was ordered to leave the country in 48 hours but he didn't, he was charged
and pleaded guilty of disobeying the order of the court .Gandhi then asked leave to make
a short statement and having obtained it, he said he thought there should be distinction
made between his case and those who were to follow. He had just received a message
from Pretoria that his compatriots had been sentenced to three months imprisonment
with hard labour with fine. He said that if these men had committed an offence, he had
committed a greater offence and he asked the magistrate to impose upon him the
heaviest penalty. But the magistrate felt that the heaviest penalty will totally be out of
proportion to the offence , he then sentence Gandhiji for 2 months imprisonment without
hard labour. Gandhiji was then removed to custody.

Before the court in 1913

A deputation led by Mr Polak came to India to press the question of the repeal of the £3
tax. Gandhijj wired to Mr Gokhale asking whether the promise of repeal was limited to
women only . Mr Gokhale replied that it applied to all who were affected by the tax.
Gandhi asked Union Government for a repeal of it in 1914 but they declined. It was then
that Gandhi organized the great movement advising Indians to suspend work till the
tax was repealed. Under his lead the Indian labourers gathered in thousands and they
passed mine after mine adding to their numbers. The government hoping to demoralize the
Indians issued a warrant to arrest Gandhiji. Gandhiji was presented before the magistrate,
Mr Trunbell read the section and left the matter in the hands of the Magistrate. Gandhiji
obtained the permission of the court to make some statements, he said that he had only
done his duty in advising his countrymen that until the tax was removed they should
leave the work . He also said he felt sorry for the employers to whom a serious loss were
being caused by this campaign though he has nothing against the employers. The
magistrate in pronouncing sentence said that he feels its his painful duty to pass a sentence
upon a gentleman like Mr. Gandhi but as it’s his duty he has to perform it. He sentence him
if £20 or three months imprisonment with hard labour.

Was it contempt of court?

B. C. Kennedy, the district judge , addressed a letter to the Registrar of the High
Court ,regarding the conduct of two barristers who had taken Satyagraha pledge "to
refuse civilly to obey the Rowlatt Act and such other laws as a committee to be
thereafter appointed may think fit". Gandhiji as the editor and Mr Desai as the publisher
of Young India, published the said letter with comments thereon. The Registrar of the High
court then applied for a rule calling the respondent, Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Desai, to show
cause why they should not be punished or otherwise dealt according to law, for
contempt of court. Then proceedings took place in the High Court. After the proceedings
the Registrar addressed a letter to Mr. Gandhi requesting him to attend the Chief Justice's
Chamber to give an explanation as regards the publication of the letter. Mr. Gandhiji replied
by telegram explaining his inability to attend on the appointed date as he was going to the
Punjab. The Registrar replied saying that the Chief Justice did not wish to interfere with
Mr. Gandhi's appointment and that a written explanation would do, if an apology in the
following terms were published in the next issues of Young India.

Mr. Gandhi, however, did not publish the apology and took counsel's opinion and
addressed a letter to the Registrar expressing his inability to apologize. He stated that he
had consulted his legal friends and given much anxious consideration to the
apology suggested by His Lordship and regret to find himself unable to publish the
suggested apology.
A few days before the hearing of the rule Mr. Gandhi addressed a letter to the Registrar
with which he enclosed copies of statements which he and Mr. Desai desired to submit
before the Court.
Mr. Gandhi in his statement said that he was unable to accept the advice because He did
not consider that he had committed either a legal or a moral breach by publishing Mr.
Kennedy's letter or by commenting on the contents thereof. He therefore cheerfully and
respectfully accept the punishment that this Honourable Court may be pleased to impose
upon him for the vindication of the majesty of law. He also mentioned that Mr. Desai
published it simply upon his request and advice.
Continuing the Advocate General drew the deduction that gist of Mr. Gandhi's article was
that as Mr. Kennedy was fanning the fire of Bolshevism, the High Court, if it acted on his
letter, would likewise distrub the peace and fan the fire of Bolshevism. Mr. Gandhi
addressing the Court said that he did not propose to say anything beyond what he had
already said in his statement. Though Mr. Justice Marten reminded him that he was himself
a member of the bar and he could argue out the case from the legal standpoint, but
Gandhiji felt that he was unprepared to do so and feel that Court had before now done
justice in many undefended cases.
J. Marten then drew Mr. Gandhi's attention to a decision in England, whereby the editor and
publisher of a newspaper were fined for contempt. Mr. Gandhi then argued that it
happened when the case was going on.

The Great Trial

 Gandhiji was arrested at the Satyagraha Ashram for certain articles published in
his Young India Journal.The names of the articles were ‘Disaffection a virtue’,
‘Tampering with Loyalty’, ‘The Puzzle and its Solution’, and ‘Shaking the manes’ .
All these articles preached disaffection towards the government
 On 11th noon (March 1922) Gandhiji and Mr. Banker were placed before the
Mr. Brown, Assistant Magistrate.
 Two formal police witnesses were then produced. The Accused Mr. Gandhi and Mr.
Banker declined to cross examine the witnesses and thereafter made some
statements.
 Gandhiji in his statement said that it is quite true that the articles read in his
presense were written by him, and the proprietors and publishers had permitted
him to control the whole policy of the paper.
 The charges having been read out, the judge called upon the Accused to plead to
the charges. He asked Mr. Gandhi, whether he pleaded guilty or claimed to be
tried. Both pleaded guilty .
 . The Judge said that nothing further remained but to pass the sentence and before
doing so, he liked to hear Sir Thomas. Sir Thomas said that the articles formed part
of an organized campaign, which was to preach disaffection towards the existing
govt. and preparing the country for civil disobedience. Then he read out certain
articles which were publish in Young India and some instances like Chauri Chaura.
The Court asked Gandhi ji if he would like to make a statement and Gandhi ji agreed to this
Gandhi’s Oral Statement
Gandhi ji then in his statement said that the fact that to preach disaffection towards
the existing system of government has become almost a passion to him and he
takes the resposibilty of Chauri Chaura instance as he could not convey his message
efficiently to the people. Non voilence has always been his first article of faith and
last creed. He then explained his contribution in various social works which
sometimes was at the cost of his health. He states that he wanted to avoid violence
and he always preached non-violence.He blames the British and states that they had
done irrepairable harm to India .He takes fully responsibility of the Indians who
indulged in violence and states that he is sorry about it. The fact that the violence is
one of the response of his actions makes Gandhi to ask the judge nor for the light
 sentence but for the severest penalty possible or to either resign his post as a
judge.He says that there was ragig emotions in his heart that made him take these
risks.

Gandhi’s Written Statement

 He states that Rowlatt act was a great Shock and it put Indians in trouble and robbed
them of all the freedom
 In alomost all the instances British officers were declared as innocent eventhough
they inflicted damage to Indians and were also receiving good amount in the form of
Pension
 He writes that British was clearly draining India of all her wealth
 Gandhi states that crimes by British is unparalled in history
 Political cases were framed and in 9 out of 10 cases Indians were innocent
 Gandhi states that section 124-A under which he is charged is the prince amongst all
the sections and that he feels that it was an honour for him to be charged under this
section where many of the his national heroes were also charged.

The Judgement

The Judge in his judgement said that Mr. Gandhi have made his task easy by pleading guilty
to the charges and he is a great patriot and a great leader, he has also done much to
prevent violence. The judge states that if there would be any law that can reduce the
punishment of Gandhi, he would be happy about it. The judge also mention the case of Bal
Gangadhar Tilak, that a sentence of simple imprisonment of six years was pronounced
and he thinks Gandhi also deserves the same punishment and Gandhi was thus sentenced
to imprisonment for 6 years .A simple imprisonment for six month's was pronounced to
Mr. Banker.

Gandhi ji on the judgement said that he felt honour and privilege to be associated with
Mr. Tilak and consider the judgement as light as any judge would inflict on him.
Gandhi ji was then taken out of the court to Sabarmati Jail, and thus the great trail finished.
 SECTION IV : LAWYERS AND SATYAGRAHA
COURTS AND SCHOOLS
The non-co-operation committee had included in the first stage, boycott of law -courts by
lawyers and of government schools and colleges by parents or scholars as the case but as
Gandhi knew that it was his reputation as a worker and fighter which has saved him from an
open charge of lunacy for having given the advice about boycott of courts and schools.
He ventures however to claim some method about his madness.It does not require much
reflection to see that it is through courts that a government establishes its authority and it
is through schools that it manufactures clerks and other employees. they are both healthy
institutions when the government in charge of them and just but deathtraps when the
government is unjust.
First as to lawyers
No newspaper has combated his views on non -co-operation with so much pertinacity and
ability as the Allahabad Leader.it has ridiculed Gandhi views on lawyers expressed in his
booklet Indian Home Rule, written by him in 1908.
He adheres to the views then expressed and if he hopes to elaborate them in these
columns. But when he refrains from so doing for the time being, as his special views have
nothing to do with his advice on the necessity of lawyers suspending practices. But he
submits that national non -co-operation requires suspension of their practice of lawyers.
perhaps no one co -operates with a government more than lawyers through its law-
courts. Lawyers interpret laws to the people and thus support authority.it is for that
reason that they are styled officers of the court. They may be called honorary officer-
holders.it is said that it is the lawyers who have put up the most stubborn fight against the
government. this is no doubt but partly true. But that does not undo the mischief that is
inherent in the profession.so when the nation wishes to paralyze the government, that
profession, if it wishes help the nation to bend the government to its will, must suspend
practice. But, say the critics, the government will be too pleased, if the pleaders and
barristers fell into the trap laid by Gandhi. But he does not believe it. What is true in
ordinary times is not true in extraordinary times. In normal times the government may
resent fierce criticism of their manners and methods by lawyers, but in the face of fierce
action they would be loath to part with a single lawyer’s support through his practice in the
courts.
Moreover, in Gandhi’s scheme, suspension does not mean stagnation. The lawyers are not
to suspend practice and enjoy rest. They will be expected to induce their clients to boycott
courts. They will improvise Arbitration Boards in order to settle disputes. A nation, that is
bent on forcing justice from an unwilling government, has little time for engaging in
mutual quarrels. This truth the lawyers will be expected to bring home to their clients. The
readers may not know that many of the most noted lawyers of England suspended their
work during the late war. the lawyers, then, upon temporarily leaving their profession,
become whole-time workers instead of being workers only during their recreation hours.
Real politics as a pastime. we have no notion as to how much the country has lost by reason
of amateurs having managed its battles with a serious minded, trained and whole time-
working bureaucracy.

LAWYERS AND NON-CO-OPERATION

 As Gandhi had suggested another matter that the lawyers should suspend their
practice but he cannot do because the government had always been able to retain
this power through the instrumentality of lawyers

 It is perfectly true that it is the lawyers of today who are leading us, fighting the
country’s battles but when it comes to a matter of action against the government it
always looks to the lawyers.

 So, Gandhi therefore suggest lawyers about their practice and to show the
government that they will no longer retain their offices, because lawyers are
considered to be honorary officers of the court hence, they were subject to their
disciplinary jurisdiction

 They must no longer retain these honorary offices if they want to withdraw co-
operation from government and when it comes to law and order? For that it shall
evolve through the instrumentality of these very lawyers by promoting arbitration
courts and dispense justice, pure, simple, home-made justice, swadeshi justice, to
our countrymen. That is what suspension of practice means.
.

COBBLERS v. LAWYERS
Motibabu said my (Gandhi) mentioned of cobblers in the same breath as lawyers had
offended some of them. He felt sorry to hear this. As Gandhi also remember the note in
these pages, and it was certainly not written to offend. He had said many hard things about
lawyers, but he had never considered them to be guilty of caste prejudices. He was sure that
the lawyers have appreciated the spirit of his remark..
HOW MANY LAWYERS AND STUDENTS HELP

 As Gandhiji mentioned in the previous chapter about lawyers suspending their

practice. In this context he asked everywhere about lawyers and students who do
not carry out the congress resolution and which affecting them can help the
movement.
 If a lawyer or a student who cannot non-co-operate as such, he cannot help at all. He
mentioned that there are hundreds of students and lawyers who are not suspending
their normal studies or their practice, as the case may be. Only out of weakness.
 Gandhi said those lawyers who cannot suspend their practice can certainly help with
money, and he can give his spare hours to public services, can introduce honesty and
fair dealings in his profession.
 Lawyers can cease to promote settlement of cases by private arbitration, can at least
do spinning himself for one or two hours per day, and he can simplify the life of his
family, can introduce the member of the family to do spinning religiously for a
certain time daily, he can also adopt for himself and his family the use of khaddar.
 These are the only some of the things that can be done by every lawyer. Because a
man cannot or will not carry out a particular part of the non-co-operation program.
 One thing a practising lawyers may not do that he may no longer figure as a leader
on public platforms, he must be content to be a silent workers, as Gandhi mentioned
practising lawyers and the students who cannot or will not withdraw from schools
that most of our volunteer are drawn from the student world.
 Where volunteering is a privilege and a students who as not been able to withdraw
from government schools cannot receive privileges from the nation.
 They too must be content to be unambitious servants of the nation. Even if they
cannot completely boycott schools and colleges.
 We must destroy their prestige that prestige has almost gone and is daily decreasing.
 And we must do nothing that would restore their prestige till they are nationalized
and answer the requirements of the nation.

PRACTISING LAWYERS

 The patrika devotes a leading article to an examination where the position is taken
up by Gandhi regarding lawyers and strongly dissents from it. Patrika thinks
practising lawyers may continue to lead public opinion on congress platform.
 Gandhi suggest that any such deviation from the non-co-operation resolution will
be a serious mistake , Gandhi was aware that the patrika thinks that the congress
 has not called upon all lawyers to suspend practice where he ventures to differ
from the interpretation
 Where the resolution was call upon all lawyers to make greater effort, to suspend
practice, and in his opinion those lawyers who have not yet succeeded in
suspending their practice, cannot expect to hold office in any congress
organization or lead opinion on congress platform.
 Where they were titled men to be elected as office bearers, although they may not
have given up their titles? According to Gandhi if we agree with the things we do
not face the issue boldly, but we stand in danger of corrupting the movement
 If he does not suspend his practice, he simply will not carry weight. Gandhi have
noticed this again during his tows. That those lawyers, who have hitherto led
public opinion, have either renounced practice or public life
 But patrika errs started comparing practising lawyers to merchants where not
many merchants have yet led public opinion but if they come forward they have
certainly renounced dealing in foreign cloth
 Where the toleration divorce between profession and practice Gandhi was so glad
about public that they did not seek up public position, and they help the
movement as a weak but humble followers in another
 Where thousands were unable to carry out the full advice of the congress and are
yet eagerly helping as silent camp followers, this are the position that practising
lawyers should take up. Which will be honourable, dignified and consistent.
 The patrika goes beyond the scope of the paragraph of young india when it
prevents as an alternative to suspension, derision and insult. He thought it would
be an unworthy non-co-operator.
 As patrika had fear that there should be a complete boycott of law courts, before
practising lawyers cease to be leaders, as it is impossible without a rebel
government but practising lawyers may safely lead opinion as hitherto.
 Although law courts may not be completely boycotted ,Nehru , das and Gandhi
refuse to give public status to practising lawyers and others who have not carried
out the congress resolution
 If they restore titled men, lawyers and others to their status even though they
have not responded, we commit national suicide.
 Lastly, the patrika is wrong in arguing that the congress has called for suspension
in order to secure the lawyer’s services.
 The motive as the preamble of the original resolution clearly states, is to
undermine the government’s prestige by the non-co-operation of parties to the
institutions on which the prestige is built.

ABOUT LAWYERS
 The Jamnalal bajaj fund of one lakh of rupees that was given for the support of
lawyers who had suspended practice as a result of the Nagpur resolution
 The lawyers cannot go back to practice with any show of decency, and that many will
not countenance even the idea of a return when the country is showing such
wonderful example of self-sacrifice.
 But it would not be proper to leave the lawyers to their own resources. And so
Gandhi suggested to the provincial committees that they should take up the burden
subject to assistance from the central fund, which found necessary
 The least among the difficulties that surround the lawyer class at the present
moment. They take part in a national awakening.
 The whole cause can be lost if top men weaken at a supreme crises, but the congress
has purposely opened an honourable door for them
 The original draft was perhaps uncertain and the conditions for them are easy of
fulfilment, being mostly matters of belief. The use of khadi may cause some little
inconvenience at first and , as among non-co-operators imprisonment cover a
multitude of defects, practising lawyers who go through the first imprisonment will
by that one fact.
 That lawyers will, to the best of their ability and opportunity, respond to the
country’s call in many of the various ways open to them.
 Non-co-operators on their part instead of priding themselves upon their
achievements, should be humble enough to receive all the aid that might be
rendered to the country’s cause.
 The spirit of toleration should take the place of intoleration and exclusiveness. It can
do no credit to the movement or good to the cause if a man, who has nothing or
little to sacrifice, claims, by reason of his putting on khadi. So lawyers are serving the
country in various way .
 Whatever is offered upon the altar of service to the motherland with a willing heart
must be thankfully received.
THE SATYAGRAHI LAWYERS

 As a protest against the passing of the anarchical and revolutionary crimes act (x1
of 1919), known popularly as the Rowlatt act, certain barristers and pleaders
practicing in the courts of the Ahmedabad district joined a movement called the
satyagraha Sabha and signed a pledge whereby they undertook “to refuse civilly to
obey these laws (viz., the Rowlatt act) and such other laws as a committee to be
hereafter appointed may think fit”. B.C. Kennedy, the district judge of Ahmedabad,
called upon these barristers and pleaders to explain their conduct in signing the
pledge.
 The respondents offered an explanation of their conduct which the district judge
considered unsatisfactory. On a reference from the district judge, the high court of
Bombay issued notice against the respondent barristers and pleaders to show cause
why they should not be dealt with under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the high
court for taking the pledge. The notice came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Chief
Justice Sir Norman Macleod and Mr. Justice Heaton and Mr. Justice Kajiji. On hearing
bahadurji, acting advocate-general who appeared in support of the notice and the
 counsel for the respondent barristers and pleaders who appeared to show cause the
High court delivered judgement on 15-10-1919. It was held by the high court that the
barristers and pleaders had, by signing the pledge, rendered themselves amenable
to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the circumstances it was not necessary to take any
disciplinary action against the respondents but a mere warning to them was enough.
The judgement of the high court is reported in 22 Bombay law reporters at page 13.]
 The judgement of the Bombay high court in the case of the satyagrahi lawyers is,
to say the least, highly unsatisfactory. It has shirked the issue. The logical outcome
of the judgement should have been punishment and not a postponement of it. The
lawyers in question had shown no repentance. So far as the public know, they will
be ready to offer civil disobedience should the occasion arise. The issue having
been raised, the lawyers did not ask for mercy but a clear decision. As it is, they do
not know where they are.
 The learned judges have laid down principles of legal conduct which, in our humble
opinion, are open to question. For instance, what is the meaning of “those who live
by the law must keep the law”? if it means that no lawyer may ever commit a civil
breach without incurring the displeasure of the court, it means utter stagnation.
Lawyers are the persons most able to appreciate the dangers of bad legislation and it
must be with them a sacred duty by committing civil breach to prevent a criminal
breach. Lawyers should be guardians of law and liberty and as such are interested in
keeping the statute book of the country ‘pure and undefiled’. But the judges of the
Bombay high court have presented to them a mercenary view of their profession
and have even confounded the functions of judges and lawyers. The only escape
from the intolerable situations created by the judgement is for the respondents to
have the case restored to the board, re-argued and to ask for a final decision.
Fortunately, the judges have left the course open to the satyagrahi lawyers.

MYSORE LAWYERS
 Several Mysore lawyers who had taken part in the Mysore satyagraha struggle have
been disbarred by the mysore chief court.
 The last victim is Shri H.C. Dasappa, most respected Mysorean and practitioner was
standing serious as the disbarring of a member belonging to a liberal profession
must be, such cases have happened before now on insufficient or purely on political
grounds.
 But the order of the chief judge in shri Dasappa’s case which was reported in the
hindu made Gandhi most painful , shri Dasappa had the courage to defy a
magistrate’s order not to address meeetings in a part of mysore, and had equal
courage under Gandhi’s instructions to advise Satyagrahi prisoners,to boycott the
departmental inquiry by justice Nageswara iyer.
 For these grave offences shri Dasappa has been disbarred for ever. He will be
reduced to penury, if the judges could help it and if their verdict has any potency
beyond the paper on which it is written.
 Shri Dasappa becomes a man without a character to be despised and shunned by
society.
 He has been manfully striving to practice non-violence to the best of his ability. He
had done what many patriot lawyers and no lawyers had done in british india.
 And nowadays the judges take no notice of their conduct, and the public have made
them heroes.
 Neither the honour nor the character of those who have brought about such
boycotts have been kept away from fighting for truth.
 The judges of the Mysore court have forgotten themselves in delivering their
judgement. Shri Dasappa has not suffered. He will rise in the estimation of the
people of Mysore.
 The Mysore judges have suffered by allowing themselves to be carried away by
prejudice.
 Such travesty of justice has happened before now. A Durban magistrate who was
carried by some stupid prejudice had condemned an innocent man.
 His judgement was reversed, and the supreme court condemned it in such scathing
terms that the magistrate had to be removed.
 This Mysore judgement was worse than the Punjab judgement. Due to this murders
had been committed by the mob, and eminent men were tried not by ordinary
courts but by martial law tribunals.but in mysore nothing of the kind has happened.
the chief judge’s order was cool and calculated attack on the honour of a man who
could not defend himself against reckless statement from the bench.
 Judges sometimes forget, as thes mysore gentlemen have done, that there is the bar
of public opinion which is no respecter of persons.

BABU KALINATH ROY

 This chapter deals with Babu Kalinath Roy, the editor of the ‘Tribune’ who is being
summoned by the court on serious charges and Gandhi is the lawyer who will be
defending him
 Gandhi had taken up the responsibility to supervise the editing of a magazine called
‘Young India’ Mr Horniman was deported. He has taken up the case to defend Babu
Kalinath Roy, the editor of a magazine who is currently defunct.
 Serious charges under Sec. 124-A of the Indian Penal Code was imposed on Kalinath
Roy, Gandhi states that he looked into the editorials cited in the judgement of the
court and he never found any material that called for hatred against the British
Government or Englishmen in general.
 Gandhi further goes on to say that the magazine was never calling for violence or
civil disobedience against the British administration in particular and that they had
exercised caution in their editorials and not produced any inflammatory articles.
 The court cited that it took objection to a certain term used i.e ‘Delhi Martyrs’ which
referred to the issues of 6th and 8th April. The contents under the headings include a
 reference to the prayers held at the Jama Masjid and the other to a relief and
memorial Fund. The court took an objection that “the accused chose to emphasize
the memorial to martyrs and not the relief” and the court proceeded to say that the
inference from the heading was that those who were shot at Delhi were dealt
without sufficient cause and were branded as martyrs by the magazine.
 The next indictment in the judgement deals with the editor of the ‘Tribune’ having
used the word ‘dupe’ in reference to the action of some of the honoured
Magistrates and the Municipal Commissioners who discouraged the shopkeepers
from closing their shops. This is a bare statement of fact as the accused knew it.
 The other charges against the editor of the ‘Tribune’, Babu Kalinath Roy, is his
articles that are in critique of the Punjab Government were he called the actions of
the Punjab Government as “unjust and unwarranted” and that it had “exposed itself
to the severest criticisms at the bar of the public opinion”. The editor after having
reasoned to the reader, led him to the same conclusion that he arrived i.e.
discontentment against the Government of Punjab.
 The other two articles mentioned in the judgement of the court are “Delhi Tragedy”
in the issue of April 9, and “Blazing indiscretion “in the issue of 10 th April. The “Delhi
tragedy is a critical opinion of the tragedy of 30th March, and ends with a plea to the
Government of India to appoint a public inquiry. The term “Blazing Indiscertion”
referred to Sir Michael O’Dwyer regarding his speech in the Punjab Legislative
Council. The speech, analysed in the article, contained more than “Blazing
Indiscretion” and Gandhi states that it should be Sir Michael O’Dwyer since he had
made inflammatory and irritating speeches, and had disrespected leaders, flouted
public opinion and had Drs.Kitchlew and Satyapal arrested.
 Gandhi goes on to say that his purpose now is not to prove Sir Michael O’Dwyer
guilty but rather prove the innocence of Kalinath Roy and to show that he has
suffered in the name of the justice system of the British Government. Gandhi later
goes on to ask the support of his countrymen as well as the Englishmen to pray for
Babu Kalinath Roy’s immediate release.
 Gandhi says that this case should not be singled out and given special treatment
since most likely an independent and impartial committee would be appointed that
would most likely overhaul the Martial Law administration in Punjab and revise the
sentences passed by the Martial Law Court.
He says that Roy’s case is capable of being immediately considered by the
Government on grounds that the sedition charge against the written articles
published by the ‘Tribune’ do not amount to sedition as claimed by Gandhi and that
Mr Roy should be immediately released

LALA RADHA KRISHNA’S CASE

 When Babu Kalinath Roy’s case was published, Gandhi was asked by several of his
Punjabi friends that why he had not taken up Lala Radha Krishna’s case, to which
 Gandhi respectfully told the friends that he didn’t know the case and that he would
be glad to study the case if the papers were sent to him

 He received the papers namely, the charge, the defence statement, the judgement,
Lala Radha Krishna’s petitions and the translations of portions of the pratap from
which the statement in the charge sheet were taken.

 Gandhi ji found that the case is worse than Babu Kalinath Roy’s and in his opinion
the judgement was a travesty of justice.

 There was no startling headlines as in the tribune case. The accused has been
sentenced not on the section of IPC but on the rule that has been temporarily
framed as a war measure. That rule was not passed by the legislative council. It is a
rule promulgated by the Government under the powers granted to it by the Defence
of India Act.

 The Defence of India Act is drastic that an offence against it could not be taken
cognizance of expect under special orders of the government or some office
appointed in this behalf.

 The indictment that Gandhi received contains material inaccuracies. One of the
three statements claimed by the prosecution to be false was that the accused said in
his paper that “they (the crowd) were fired at in Delhi without any cause.” This is a
dangerous inaccuracy. The passage in the question reads, “They were, at least from
their point of view, fired at without any cause.” The words italicized have been
omitted from the charge thus giving a different meaning to the writing from the one
intended by the writer.

 There was more examples in which, the words that have been omitted by the charge
alter the whole meaning. Gandhi ji said that if such omissions was made by a
defendant, it would amount to suppression veri and he would rightly put himself out
of the court, but as it was done by the prosecution, the omission has passed muster,
but in reality it is far more dangerous than suppression veri on the part of a
defendant.

 The last paragraph of the charge contains an unpardonable innuendo.” the accused
has published a number of sedition and inflammatory articles, but the crown prefers
to proceed under article 25.” The suggestion that the accused has written “sedition
and inflammatory articles” could only be calculated to prejudice the defence.

 Gandhi ji says that he has never seen an indictment so loosely drawn up and so
argumentative as this. The judgement too, he think that, it leaves the same
impression on one’s mind that the charge does an impression of prejudice and haste.
 THE LAHORE JUDGEMENT

 Allah Din and Motasingh have been convicted by one of the special Tribunals, under
section 121 and 121A of the IPC and have been sentenced to transportation for life
and forfeiture. Section 121 says “whoever wages war against the queen, or attempt to
wage war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death or
transportation for life and shall forfeit all his property.”

 Having convicted the accused under section 121, the Tribunals had no option but to
pronounce the sentence of transportation for life and forfeiture. That is, will be seen.
The lowest penalty the court could inflict, the highest being the penalty of death by
hanging.

 The judgement covers twenty-seven sides of the foolscap size, it is being presented to
the readers of young India and Gandhi wants or urge every reader to go through it
word by word. Gandhi further says that this judgement forms the saddest commentary
on British justice, when the judges are ruled by passion and prejudice and not by a
sense of justice.

 Gandhi says that we people of India think that British courts are the palladia of liberty.
Justice in British courts is and expensive luxury. Only the rich with lots of money and
frame can get it.

 Mr Winston Churchill at the time of the education crusade permitted himself to admit
that even the judges were not free from political bias. Gandhi also talks about Privy
Council, he says that this matter can be set right by Privy Council but lots of money and
time and people would avoid litigation.

 Gandhi says that if you are wrong and you are dragged to the court then do not
defend, you will deserve the sentence whatever it may be and if you are wrongly
brought to the court and yet penalized, let your innocence soothe you in your
unmerited suffering.

 The Lahore judgement shows clearly what our (citizen of India) duty is as to the
Rowlatt Act and as to the sentences. The judgement is designed to condemn the
Rowlatt legislation agitation.
 The opening paragraph of the judgement says that the public agitation against the
Rowlatt bills which began with a protest meeting held at Bradlaugh hall on the 4 th Feb,
1919,they refer to satyagraha vow and bring the events including the firing at Delhi,
the disturbances at Amritsar, and the meetings at the badshahi mosque and says that
such are the main facts and the prosecution sets out to combine and connect these
facts with the accused in such a way as to show that there was a conspiracy to secure
the repeal of the rowlatt Act by criminal means.

 The court in the next paragraph of judgement indicates the criminal means and then
describes about the hartals.

 The criminality consist in the hartal having been organised and continued,
langarkhanas having been opened during its continuance an meetings having been
held during the time. Gandhi ji began to think that hartals is the inherent right of the
people when they deeply grieved by any action of the authorities.

 Government invited violence by arresting Gandhi on his way to Delhi, with deliberate
intention of calming the atmosphere and bringing about peace. Government again
invite violence by the mad act of arresting Drs. Kitchlew and Satyapal, who were the
leaders of the people while they were carrying on a stubborn agitation against the
rowlatt legislation.

 Gandhi says that if the violation continues then Chaudhary Rambhai Dutt’s formula has
be interpreted into threat by the tribunal in order to prove the existence of criminal
conspiracy. The formula is “remove our suffering or we close our shops, suspend our
business and we ourselves shall starve.”

 That formula was not followed by there was CID inspector was beaten and driven out,
destruction of pictures of majesties and many more.

 The whole judgement was tinged with a political bias and it was impossible to expect
impartial decision.

 There was nothing in the judgement to show that any of the accused either directly or
indirectly encouraged violence.

 Gandhi says that the happening of untoward incidents may be used as a warning to
leaders. They may be used to justifying the declaration of martial law, but they cannot
be used for the purpose of making out peaceful, law abiding citizens as criminals and
liars.
 The duty of the Indian public is very clear: by a quiet, persistent and powerful
agitation, but without violence and irritation, to secure repeal of the rowlatt legislation
and the reversal of the sentences.

JAGANNATH’S CASE

 Gandhi with extreme sorrow brought the attention to third miscarriage of justice in
Punjab. This time the case of which papers has been given to Gandhi relates to Mr.
Jagannath, unknown to fame and unconnected with any public activity.

 He had been sentenced by one of the martial law tribunals to transportation for life,
with forfeiture of property, under section 121 of IPC that is, for waging war against
his majesty.

 The facts of the case were addressed to the Hon. Sir Edward Maclagan, the lieut.
Governor of the Punjab.

 The judgement of the case was that Jagannath had the notice convening the meeting
of the 5th printed, and was present at the meeting, but he denies his presence at the
meeting of 12 and 13 but the court says that he was present on both the dates and
that his defence is worthless. And they have the evidence to show that on 14 April
he took active part in shops closed, the court convict him under sec. 121,IPC.

 Gandhi submitted saying that there was no crime on the accused part to have the
notice convening the meeting of the 5th printed. And under no statue known could
these facts be held to involve any crime.

 The facts were undoubtedly prove a criminal conspiracy but the court is silent as to
which accused agreed upon the crimes recited in the paragraph.

 Gandhi submitted that it was necessary for the court definitely to find that the
accused was present at the agreement alleged to have been arrived at, for burning
bridges and cutting telegraph wires. But there was nothing in the finding of the court
beyond a statement about the accused’s presence at the meeting of 12 and 13.

 The accused’s defence rested upon alibi. It is easy set up an alibi as it is difficult to
prove it, but the defence of alibi was completely established.

 Mr. Jagannath produce witnesses but court rejected the application, but granted
interrogatories, put the accused to the expense of Rs.250 for the expenses of
commission and pronounced judgement against the accused without waiting for the
return of the commission.
  The accused shows ten independent witnesses, he shows the extract from railway
time tables, he shows so many evidence which indicates that no ground, accused
should be kept in jail for a single moment.

 Accused was a man of humble position and status in life, with no education, he has
never taken part in political body .the humbleness of his position makes it doubly
incumbent on the public to see that the meanest of the subjects of the king suffers
no wrong.

 Gandhi says that this case is even worse. It is worse in that martial law judges in their
impatience, to convict, declined to wait for a return of the commission they
themselves had granted—a commission on whose return hung the liberty, and might
have been, even the life of the accused.
Another Scandal(KARAMCHAND’S CASE, the lad)

 Another Scandal presents before us another instance of a case dealt wrong. The very
institution set up for the people, to ensure justice has failed them, judges in whom
the people have the utmost faith are here the perpetrators of injustice. Ensuring the
English safety from physical harm by the natives by inflicting outrageous
punishments as exemplary seems to outweigh the discretion, natural wisdom of the
judges and the need for justice. Never before have the citizens of India had to
encompass capital punishment for the flimsiest evidence presented before the court
in the most perfunctory manner as was done in the Hafizabad case.
 Of the nineteen men accused for waging war one of whom is Karamchand , a student
of Dayanand Anglo-Vedic College is the main subject of the case in hand. The
accused in the case were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code
and the judges had the full discretion to convict them for any of the milder sections
had they chosen, they however scented war in every act of the crowd in those
three or four days of April.
The fact stands clear that waging war against the king is unsustainable however nothing in
the full text of the evidence provides ground for the judges to claim “the orators had incited
the crowd to take immediate and vigorous steps to overthrow the government by raising as
much opposition to it as possible.”
The judges held-
“Karamchand, No.19, was peculiarly guilty. He brought down the news of the Lahore riots.
He gave a most garbled account of it. And by representing that the Lahore crowd had
succeeded in beating the military, he gave the Hafizabad crowd reason to believe that their
insurrection would be successful.”
And proclaimed extreme penalty on them. The three men who are imposed with capital
punishment along with Karamchand are active assailants of Lieutenant Tatam but not
Karamchand as is clear from the judgement just quoted.
From the evidence against the accused, two of the prosecution witnesses who were on
the same train as Lieutenant Tatam had only given identifying evidence, unsure if
Karamchand himself had done anything at all. Prosecution witness No.5 identified
Karamchand after 18 or 20 after the 14th April when the alleged offence is said to have been
committed, Witness No 6 identified him 10 or 12 after the said date and both the witness
admitted that they were utter strangers to Karamchand. The only charge against
Karamchand was that he brought some news from Lahore on 11th. The Head Master of the
D.B. School gave evidence stating that Karamchand was talking about the riots of Lahore
that the people being fired upon with a machine gun were not retreating. The Head Master
advised him not to spread this news at Hafizabad. Karamchand happened to be his old pupil
and there were only 6 or 7 people present to hear about this account and this was outside
the town on footpath. Karamchand was excited.
From cross examination of this witness it was found that the accused did not belong to
Hafizabad and he went away when the Head Master asked him to.
Prosecution Witness No.7 gave evidence corroborating that of the Head Master.
So it is evident that all Karamchand did was bring some news of riot from Lahore on the
11th about which he spoke outside the town in the presence of 6 or 7 people, he stopped
after being advised from the Head Master and there is no evidence to prove that he was
present on the 14th of April or any of those 6 or 7 people and also he was not a resident of
Hafizabad.
One fails to see what peculiarity the Judges found in Karamchand’s case.
No witnesses gave enough evidence to prove that Karamchand was present on 14 th April at
the station and Karamchand said he was not there and produced four witnesses to prove
that he was in his village Udhoki. So there was as much probability of Karamchand and his
witnesses telling the truth as there was for the two witnesses of the prosecution being
mistaken about Karamchand’s identity. It is not justice to sentence a man to be hanged on
the very testimony as to identify.
This case is hence taken before the Lieutenant Governor by Gandhi to be studied personally
which certainly will result in acquittal on studying of the case.

Victims Not Guilty (Lala Karamchand Case)

 This chapter deals with another unjust case of Lala Karamchand not the same as lad
Karamchand who was sentenced to be hanged.
 The graphic language of his son Devidas’s letter shows that the accused in the case
are ‘victims not guilty.’ If this letter be true and there is no reason to doubt its
accuracy then this whole proceeding constitutes a mockery of legal trial.
 Twenty eight men stand accused for the charges of burning the majesty’s effigy.
The accused are unaware of the charges and get to only through the mouth of
 prosecution witnesses. 150 Defence witnesses were examined in a day, how the
judge could examine so many witnesses in a day stands a question mark. No copy
of notes of evidence or statements of the accused are maintained inspite of
repeated applications.
 The accused were arrested eight days after the alleged offence when order was
restored in Punjab. The trial took place on 22nd May, five weeks after the alleged
offence, when there was no occasion to rush through the trial it remains unclear why
they were done so.
 The diary of a police officer regarding the happenings of 17th April shows no sign of
a serious offence only a partial hartal and any serious offence would surely have
been mentioned had there been any. The offence alleged is not something that can
be secretly performed. There is enough doubt to throw on the prosecution witness
but the judge had no doubt. The story of the prosecution varies from time to time.
Five maunds of fuel said to have been required for burning His Majesty’s effigy got
reduced to a few straws!
 At best one of the accused could have been a mere spectator. The facts are common
to all the accused. Papers regarding Lala Daulatram also one of the accused tally with
that of Lala Karamchand.
 Lala Karamchand is an old retired servant who has never taken part in politics and
has been spending the past few years passing between Ramnagar to
Hardwar,devouting to religious pursuits and Lala Daulatram is the son of one who
has rendered meritorious service to the Governmeent for a long period.
 The twenty eight men in this case are ignorantly condemned. The explaining away of
the weak points in the prosecution, the punishment of solitary confinement, the
heavy fines prove the unfitness of the judge.
 The case is therefore brought before His Excellency the Viceroy so he can do unto
these humble men even as he would wish to be done unto himself, if he were in
their place.

NOTE: Lala Karamchand is different from Karamchand, the lad and thus there is difference in
the cases discussed

LALA LABHU RAM

 Lala Labhu Ram was a civil engineer and he belonged to a very respectable and loyal
family , though he was in England , he was a state engineer in India
 He was a man who discharged his professional duties and helped the authorities to
his utmost ability
  He was accused that he was present in the Badshahi Mosque meeting and also be a
part of hartal or the strike
 He was also charged on the grounds that he was involved in a group of people who
attacked the police officers
 The police dairy however has no name in the list of the people who made a note of
the people who attacked them and it is very clear that the charges are untrue.
 Gandhi very clearly states that the claims that were made very very unreasonable
and urges the court to reconsider the accuses on Lala Labhu Ram
 Gandhi also mocks the witness who regularly attend to give false evidence and the
same happened in the case of Lala labhu ram and states that they are professional
Witnesses and they do this job of giving false witness against the innocent.
 Gandhi feels that one would be shocked since the punishment was a sentence of
transportation with the forfeiture of property as long as fourteen years.
 Gandhi states that if one does involve in mistreating the police officers then they do
deserve punishment but states that in this case the government must analyse the
facts and ensure that the innocent is not punished

GUJARATIMAL CASE
 Gujaritimal was a 18 year old kid who had received not more than the middle school
education
 He was accused that he was a principal speaker and that he was involved with acts
that were derogatory to the government
 He was in his place getting his shop repaired but the policemen came with warrants
issued against him and they prosecuted and this was a great surprize since there was
no reason as to why he was arrested
 Gujaratimal was sentenced to be hanged , subsequently commuted to
transportation and seven years imprisonment.It was a very serious sentence
especially considering the fact that the kid was only eighteen who was clearly not
present in the crime scene or was not even involved in it
 The prosecution witness who were present and had accused Gujaratimal were
unable to identify him and thus this itself serves as a proof that the he was not
involved in the crime
 There was difference in the stories that the prosecution themselves stated , for
instance one of the prosecution stated that Gujaratimal did deliver the speech while
the other witness stated that it was Gian singh who delivered the speech
 Gandhi therefor urges for more search and enquiry since a young boy is accused and
there are firm evidences that clearly suggest that he was not a part of the any crime
scene
LABH SINGH

 Labh singh was a barrister who was accused of a crime that he did not commit and
Gandhi appreciates the fact that he deserves both sympathy and admiration
  Sympathy for the fact that he had to spent the time in the jail for the crime that he
did not commit
 Admiration for the fact that the prison could not break his spirit
 He was accused that he took an active part in the agitation against the Rowlatt act
and was present in the meeting on the 12th and the 13th .He was accused of assisting
mob that had caused violence and thus he was charged under 121 I.P.C
 It was very clear that the charges were false and he was not present in any of the
accused places as well
 Punjab jails in general had people like labh singh who were accused with no
authentic proof of any crimes that were commited
 Gandhi clearly states that he had examined many such similar cases and he did not
feel that he was unhappy with the findings of the court
 Gandhi also urges the public to examine and states that they owe people like Labh
singh sympathy and states that public must understand that justice is everything and
urges the people to hold the same view
 This is a case similar to Gujaratimal

MORE PUNJAB TRAGEDIES

In this chapter, Gandhiji deals with the wrongs done by the court against some of the
Indians. Two of them mentioned in this chapter are Mr. Gurudayal Singh’s case and Dr.
Mahomed Bashir’s case, both high sprited men, having a life full of promise.
Whereas Dr. Bashir’s sentence was reduced from capital punishment, the case of Mr.
Gurudayal Singh is a more unjust one.The complete facts have not been, but to sum it up
briefly :Gandhiji received a letter from Gurudayal Singh’s brother that, Gurudayal singh
was accused of being in a mob which broke the glass panes of the Tahsil windows, but his
brother said he had a copy of the medical certificate which stated that his brother was
suffering from appendicitis. His brother was not even aware of the accusation against him
until the happening of the prosecution. The prosecution witnesses were also those who
had a long history of hatred against Gurudayal singh.
Gandhiji seriously condemns the act of the court, as it has not informed the accused of the
charges against him, and has also not given him a chance to prove himself innocent.

HOW NOT TO DO IT?

In this chapter, Gandhi while referring to the case of Kesar Mal gives a preface and
warning about how not to draft a petition. Gandhi describes the petition praying for the
release of her young husband given by Mayadevi (16 yr. old wife of Kesar) as the handiwork
of a draftsman who has written in a fit of rage, against what he has, undoubtedly and with
good cause, believed to be a monstrous injustice. Gandhi after seeing that the concerned
petition is written in so much rage says that “but anger is short madness and noblest causes
have been damaged by advocates affected with temporary lunacy.” Gandhi has always
found a pleasure in dissecting the many business-like petitions that came from the sorrowful
but in this present petition he had to labour through violent language to what he considers
to be a right conclusion. He then goes on to warn writers of petition, whether they be
pleaders or otherwise, to think of the cause they may be supporting for the time being. He
says that a bare statement of facts decorated with few adjectives is far more eloquent and
effective than a narrative glowing with exuberant language.
Gandhi says that petition writers must understand that they address busy men, not
necessarily sympathetic, sometimes prejudiced and almost invariably prone to sustain the
decisions of their subordinates. In the case of Punjab they approach a Viceroy and
Lieutenant Governor who have preconceived notions. Gandhi shares his experience of
serving under the late Mr.Gokhale and for a time under the Governmenet of India. Both of
them advised him that if he wants to be heard he must be brief, write to the point and
adhere to the facts, and never travel beyond the cause under notice, and must be most
sparing in his adjectives. Gandhi gives all the credit of his success due to the following of the
advice given by the two illustrious deceased.
Gandhi hopes that the excellent case of young Kesar Mal may not be overlooked by reason
of bad draftsman ship of the petition. He says it is the business of public workers to sift from
the chaff of a badly drawn document and the former to the public.
Gandhi then gives the facts of the case of young Kesar Mal, it was the case of Hafizabad
station’s tumult during which Lieut. Tatam was alleged to have been the object of the
mischievous attention of the crowd that had gathered at the station. The grounds as
collected from the petition were:
1. The prosecution evidence was inconsistent with itself.
2. Kesar Mal was charged of snatching Lieut. Tatam’s child from him but Tatam himself
refused saying that “none tried to snatch the child from me!” when Kesar was
produced in front of him.
3. Kesar Mal was not even recognized as one of the men concerned in assaulting Lieut.
Tatam.
4. Identification parade was held sometime after the occurrence.
5. It was found out by Lieut. Tatam’s report that Commissioner Lieut. Col. O’Brien
unnecessarily compelled him to make too much of the case.
6. The police are alleged of having given colour to the proceedings which they did not
deserve.
7. The prosecution witnesses were nearly all Govt. servants who are alleged to have
been made to give evidence.
 8. Prosecution witnesses against Kesar Mal were either prejudiced or themselves
feared implications or expected favours.
9. Lieut. Tatam himself had nothing against Kesar Mal. Everything was just a
conspiration against him.
10. The defence evidence was entirely ignored although the defence witnesses were
impartial men of position.
11. Kesar Mal belongs to a family which rendered services to the Govt.

If all of these above stated allegations in the petition are true, it is clear that Kesar Mal has
been wrongly convicted and is entitled to be discharged. For cases like this there was a great
need for an impartial Commission to investigate them therefore Sir William Vincent stated
that two judges would be appointed to investigate such cases and report upon them to the
govt. Gandhi says that public will only be satisfied with this separate committee provided
that the judges to be appointed are strong, independent and noble men. Sir William Vincent
does not realize the pain and the torture under which the relatives of men who are wrongly
convicted, are passing their days.
Fining the Laborers

In this chapter Gandhi brings to public notice a bad law that allows a Government to impose
a penalty. He tells about the incident where Government had decided that people in
Ahmedabad has to pay a fine of nearly nine lakhs of rupees in connection with the April
disturbances. Gandhi refers to this as a bad law because it places a Government above law
and enable them to impose their will upon people without consultation with them or
without the authority of a properly constituted judicial tribunal. Gandhi says that the
principle that the wanton damage done to life and property by crowds of people should be
made good by them is beyond dispute but the acceptance of that principle cannot and does
not involve acceptance of arbitrary powers.
Gandhi then talks about the case of Ahmedabad millhands in which a fine of rupees 176
thousand has been fixed and the recovery has to be made from all millhands employed
durng September 1919, within the municipal limits. The disturbances took place in April last.
Gandhi criticises this case by saying that millhands must have changed somewhat and
newcomers constantly come in then why should those who joined after the disturbances
and have no connection with them be made to payy anything ? why should women and
children pay? The population of the mills is 60,000 labourers, is it right to fine them? The
order was given n 26th September, 1919 and the millowners had to pay an amount equal to
one week’s wages of the manual labourers employed during September 1919in the mill out
of the amount held by him as caution money on their account to the Huzur Deputy
Collector. The millhands were not given the chance of appeal nor have they been given the
option of paying the fine themselves. The caution money i.e. the money retained by the
millowners out of the wages due to the millhands, has been summarily attached without
notice to or consent of the labourers concerned.
Gandhi says that this way of treating the labourers is not at all ethical because it is like
collecting fine from owners of cattle for trespass without reference to the latter. The
enormous sum of 176000 is to be collected during a festival season common to both the
Hindus and Muslims though this is unintended but the labourers will conclude that the
festival season has been intentionally chosen to wound their feelings.
Gandhi then talks about the Collector of Ahmedabad saying that though he is a good man
he cannot help but criticize his actions because if he was not a slave to a system which
makes arbitrary procedure possible at almost every step of national life, he could not have
helped seeing the absurdity and the injustice of the action taken by him. Gandhi expresses
his hopes that now when the matter is before the Excellency the Governor the labourers of
Ahmedabad will be redressed because the sum apportioned for them is too much and it
should be reduced. Women and boys should be exempted and the payment received by
easy stages. Gandhi says that he understands the difficulty of collection by instalment from
a large number of labourers but that difficulty is nothing compared to the infliction of a
serious injustice upon a large number of human beings. Gandhi believes that terrorizing
punishment is not the best way of weaning offenders from wrong doing.
The authorities recognized the delicacy of the situation and have drafted special police to
Ahmedabad and took extraordinary precautions in order to avoid unruliness on the part of
labourers.

An Unworthy Defence

In this segment Gandhi criticizes the debates that have taken in the Viceregal Council
and the defence put forth for every vile and vindictive act done in the Punjab in the
name of prestige, law and order. Gandhi says that at that time such a situation was there
that anyone would despair of getting justice, stating the incident of the “hands and
knees” order Gandhi despises that even for that insensible order Lieut. General Sir
Havelock Hudson had a justification. So the “hands and knees” order came into force
when the action of the crowd was against an innocent lady doctor and so it was said that
“those who wished to pass the scene of the assault on Miss Sherwood should be made
to crawl on their hands and knees” , on this Gandhi says that no act on the part of an
infuriated mob can possibly be held to justify the issuing of a barbarous order in cold
blood. There was no question of people’s wishing to pass the scene of the assault. It was
one of being obliged to pass the scene. Why should people who had no hand in the act
of violence have “to crawl on their hands and knees” in passing the scene of the assault?
Gandhi while stating the speech of Sir Havelock Hudson says it is one of those speeches
which create bad blood and give unbridled licence to the soldiery. Gandhi then gives his
point of view saying that surely there are nobler methods of ensuring protection for
European women. Why should life of a European woman be held more sacred than that
of an Indian Women? Has she not the same sense of honour , the same feelings?
The Amritsar Appeals
This chapter discussed about the Privy Council’s leave of appeal to 21 Amritsar citizens
convicted by the court marshal at Lahore due to Amritsar Riots. Due to this decision,
Gandhi referred the Privy Council as lawless. He further says that the Privy Council cannot
be free from the human institutions which are good enough only for human conditions. As
soon as this news reached Lahore. The preparations for the welcome of Lala Lajpat Roy
were cancelled and the state was in a deep mourning. And this sets a preview among the
public that there is no justice and law. Gandhi further said that the public confidence can be
obtained only by two things. First setting all the 21 members free and second the fulfillment
of Royal Proclamation. Royal Proclamation was a legal document which orders the release
of all political offenders. Who after release will not be proved as a harm for the society.
Then Gandhi says that the Government may show some courrtsey and set them free.
Gandhi says that he respectfully plead his Punjabi friends not to lose heart and be ready
even for the worst. At last he says that no nation has ever roses without sacrifice and
sacrifice can only be spoken of in connection with innocence and not with crime.
The Punjab Sentences

In this chapter Gandhi describes about the report which accused His Excellency the
Viceroy of criminal want of imagination as he refused to commute 2 death sentences out
of 5. The rejection of the Amritsar Appeals no more proves the guilt of the condemned than
their innocence could have been proved by quashing the proceedings before the Martial
Law Tribunal. Gandhi says that the murders in Amritsar were not due to any private quarrel
between the murderers and their victims but was purely political and committed under
excitement. More than full reparation has been taken for the murders and arson. The
popular belief favours the view that the condemned men are innocent and deserves a
reduction of death sentences. The execution has been so long delayed that hanging at this
stage would give a rude shock to Indian society. Gandhi says that according to Lord
Chelmsford the demands of justice will not be satisfied if at least some of the condemned
men are not hanged. Gandhi says that any Viceroy with imagination would have
announced commutation of the death sentences, he still hopes that either the Viceroy or
Mr. Montagu will commute the death sentences.
If the Government carries out the sentences the people will give way to anger or grief over
the hanging if it has unfortunately to take place. Gandhi says that we Indians should become
a nation prepared to contemplate with equanimity, not a thousand murders of innocent
men and women but many thousands before we attain a status in the world that shall not
be surpassed by any nation. Therefore Gandhi hopes that the hanging should be taken as an
ordinary affair of life.

A Hard Case

In this chapter Gandhi first tells about the telegrams he received from the families of
Messrs Bugga and Ratanchand stating that Bugga has been suffering from hernia and piles
since ten years and was operated upon and Ratto is aged over 40 and therefore should not
be sent to Andamans under Jail Manual Rule 721.
The Hon’ble Pandit Motilal Nehru has analysed the cases and shown that they are no more
guilty than the others who have been discharged. But several who were originally sentenced
to death had their sentences commuted to imprisonment and are now set free.
Gandhi says that what is it that distinguishes these two cases from the others? Is it the fact
of appeal itself? If they had not appealed, or rather, if a philanthropic lawyer out of pity had
not taken up their case, fought for them against tremendous odds, they would have
escaped the hangman’s noose. Gandhi says that H.H. Lieut. Governor of the Punjab has
been generous in releasing many who suffered between April and June Last year. Although
he had the opportunity, after thev dismissal of the appeal, to hang Messrs Bugga and
Ratanchand, H.E. the Viceroy, has commuted the sentence of death to one of
transportation.
Gandhi then says about Bugga and Ratanchand that they are no more a danger to the
State than Lala Harkishen Lal, Pandit Rambhai Dutt Chowdhari and others of that
distinguished company therefore even though not a complete release but they deserve to
be kept in Punjab and if they have been sent already to bring them back for the sake of
their wives atleast. Let not the public believe that the acts of the Govt. of the day are
dictated only by fear and expedience, not by logic and high principles of justice.
Lawyers’ Duty

Gandhi himself being a lawyer never fell short of words to criticize lawyers. Mahadev, during
his short reign, criticized lawyers to his hearts’ contents. The lawyers who were civilized did
not misunderstand him. They took it positively. They saw that the shafts he aimed at them
were the shafts of love.
Although the lawyers deserved criticism, their contribution to the fight for freedom is no
mean one. He gives a list of some of the prominent lawyers he could remember and says
many of them can be mentioned on that list i.e. many of the others can be added as well.
The Lawyers therefore had no reason to feel ashamed of their contribution, but there was
none to feel elated either. Despite the sacrifice of all the above lawyers; people spoke ill
of lawyers . even Gandhi had done so. People expected every lawyer to be a patriot as
they expected every Brahmin to have possessed spiritual knowledge . A lawyers’
profession was to advocate people’s rights, to have been an expert in law and politics and
the one who saved the victims of oppression by the state. When such lawyers gave up
themselves to the pursuit of self interest, lead a life of self indulgence or have no other
aim than making money by encouraging litigation, people naturally spoke ill of them.
Shri Munshi and other lawyers had sacrificed for the people. Lawyers who dare not or would
not give up practice, continued to do some service. Many lawyers in Bombay had stopped
wearing hats of foreign clothes. Some lawyers in Gujarat had come forward to investigate
the cases of those against whom cruelb acts were being committed. The lawyers had to
come up in large numbers to offer civil disobedience and remove undeterred even if the
courts had canceled their sanads.
They couldn’t betray their country for the sake of sanads. If they lost their sanads while
doing their national work, they had to welcome that as if they had been cleansed of dirt. So
if lawyers become fearless , they can help the people of their districts in many ways like
1. Keep accounts of public funds
2. Explain legal intricacies to the people
3. Enquire into civil disobedience cases whih have been arbitrarily dealt with and
bring them into light.
4. Be there at places where there is fear o violence
5. Explain the people all case of arbitrary use of authority
 SECTION V
MISCELLANEOUS

HOW TO SPIRITUALIZE THE PROFESSION

In the following chapter, Gandhiji discussed the ways and manners in which one should
spiritualize or practice one’s profession. To explain this view, Gandhiji illustrated an example
of Colombo, where he was having a pretty little encounter with the Law students, who
promised to meet Gandhi ji at his residence but later refused to meet him out of jealousy
because Gandhi ji was busy in encountering with the smaller institutions. And hence the Law
students changed their minds and gave a sort of notice to the Reception Committee
regarding it saying that they should either call Gandhi ji to the college or sacrifice a
‘Substantial Purse’. By saying substantial purse, they meant the crowd or the power of
strength of the students.
They sought Gandhi ji’s advice on ‘HOW TO SPIRITAULIZE THE LEGAL PROFESSION’ and
Gandhi ji readily gave his advice, starting by saying that if he cannot give advice on this topic
then no one else can do so. He said that the practice of law is not to make one’s profession
subservient to interests of one’s purse but to use your profession to serve your country. He
remembered the examples of eminent lawyers who led their whole life just for the sake of
their country and always followed the path of truth and honesty. Gandhi ji also discussed
about self-sacrifice. He quoted the instance of late Man Mohan Ghose. He’s the one who
took up fight against the Indigo Planters and served his poor clients at the cost of his health.
Further he added that, Man Mohan Ghose was a brilliant lawyer, though a philanthropist.
He also advised that the students can follow the book of Ruskin’s percept ‘UNTO THIS LAST’.
Gandhi ji then further discussed about fees that why should one charge more than required
or high fees and he also confessed that at times he himself has also taken whatever he’s
referring as high fees but still his way of letting his profession is just supporting the public,
standing for the truth and serving his nation. Gandhi ji further added that after practicing in
London, South Africa, and almost everywhere, he found that lawyers profession are
consciously or unconsciously leads into untruth while defending one’s client. But always
remember that a lawyer’s profession is not to protect the guilty but to help the court to
adhere the truth. He further said that a lawyer is required to maintain the dignity of the
profession by helping the court to arrive at the correct decision. Gandhi ji also asked the law
students that if even they will not follow their profession honestly then which other
profession they expect to do so. Gandhi ji motivated the law students saying young men
being the fathers of tomorrow, shall also be the salt of the nation and if the salt loses its
savor, wherewith shall the nation be salted then.
Basically Gandhi ji advised the students to adhere by the truth, whatever the situation or
consequence may be.
BIRDS OF A FEATHER
This incident happened when Gandhi ji was in Peshawar and the Bar Association utilized his
presence by presenting him an address in the Premier’s residence. They addressed Gandhi ji
there and proudly claimed him as one of their brothers and also managed a little trumpet
for themselves by blowing his splendid services in the political field.
On the other hand, Gandhi ji in his witty speech, thanked the Bar Association for addressing
him and giving him that honor. But he said that he hardly felt that he is entitled to that
honor, firstly because he has been disbarred by his own Inn. And secondly, as he has broken
several law, rules and regulations, in order to maintain his strikes. And another or can say,
more vital reason was his peculiar views about lawyers and doctors which he has recorded
in his booklet, ‘The Indian Home Rule’. He further said that a true lawyer is one who placed
truth and service at first place and the benefits or salaries at the next place. Gandhi ji also
said that he didn’t know whether they all adopted this ideology of him but if they really
used their legal acumen (awareness) to render services for the welfare of the people and
benefit of the society. Then he would definitely and firstly pay homage to them.

AN UNJUDICIAL DICTUM
In this chapter, Gandhi ji discussed about a press cutting which a correspondent sent him
regarding two English Judges sitting as appellate court. The judgement was that the
particular case was unsatisfactory to the judges because there were no less than five people
being involved and even if their witnesses are to be believed then also, the judges were
required to be more careful because in India truth has a slight more value than in any other
nation.
According to Gandhi, this was an extraordinary pronouncement from a bench of judges
because truth always have a higher value than any other thing in any nation. Gandhi said
that the bench was a little biased because they judged the character of the whole nation.
Gandhi also added that truth is a universally accepted proposition, so were the judges
justified? Later Gandhi also agreed to the fact that it’s true that the position of truth in India
is a slight higher than in any other nation but it should not be influential in the judgement
being made. Gandhi says that such observations ought not to have much impact, if made on
Political platform, but when said by a judge it have a huge impact and thus leads to
miscarriage of justice. And hence concludes that Allahabad judges made a biased decision.
And such decision is very harmful when it is affecting the poor, as in this case. And the fact
that only poor were involved in this case, Gandhi felt that it was more important that this
matter should come in notice of the public because who knows how many such cases have
resulted in defeating justice.

UNTRUTH IN LAW COURTS

The incident being discussed in this chapter has been picked up from the Question Box,
where a judicial officer of that time’s system of law asked Gandhi about his controversial
article in Harijan “Fourfold Ruin”. This article has been in huge controversy due to
contradictory views of people. The judicial officer claims that one thing which he can
conclude from his experience without any fear of contradiction is that the courts and
institution of lawyers are mainly responsible for the moral and spiritual degradation of the
village peasantry in particular and the public in general. The judicial officer says that even
the respectable people use barefaced lies in order to win or gain little monetary benefits in
the court and this canker is eating the vitals of the village. So the judicial officer asked
Gandhi if he could suggest what a person in his position should do in order to check these
kinds of evils.
In this context Gandhi replied that whatever the judicial officer said was true. And not only
he or Gandhi but every person can feel that the value of Indian courts was decreasing.
Gandhi says that he hold radical views about it and his voice is only going to work when
India will have its own truthful and non-violent means. And if this happens, then the
condition of law and medical will be more cheap and healthy as it is today i.e. dear and
unhealthy. Gandhi further said that the heroic advice would be that the judicial officer
should embrace poverty and serve the poor. Gandhi says that reduce your standard of living
and devote your savings for their welfare
HINDU LAW AND MYSORE
In this chapter, Sjt. Bhashyam Aiyengar on Bangalore discussed his views regarding the
Hindu Law. He says that the principles of the law are itself opposing the principles of equity
and justice. And then discussed few instances like denial of right to inheritance to girls, step
mothers ,widows; deaf and dumb are also excluded from the inheritance; divorce laws;
orphan laws; laws regarding inter caste marriage etc. he then further added that the only
way of changing such laws was legislation. But they needed public views and support too.
And obtained it by forming a committee for this purpose and the members of committee
were chosen from the state. In the last budget session the suggestive legislative action was
passed unanimously. The committee was desired and ready by the state but there no official
appointment. The fear was of British India. They have a fear that Mysore might be laughed
at. But Mysore having peculiar advantages of having an earnest and progressive Dewan
could have done it.
Then Gandhi discussed that in pre- British days, there were no legislations but only Smritis.
And restraints in case of Smritis were enforced socially rather than legally. The Smritis are
however self- contradictory but with evolution new discoveries were adapted. According to
Gandhi, in early day there were wise kings and their councilors who had the wisdom and
authority to change the command of respect and allegiance of the society i.e. changes even
in the Smritis can be made but now it was a time where Smritis were named as Shastra and
were almost unchangeable. And even if changes were required who should make it possible.
The British couldn’t do this because of different religion. But a state like Mysore was having
no such limitations. And in Gandhi’s opinion, it was its duty to anticipate British India in the
matter of removing the anachronisms in the Hindu Law and the like. Mysore being a
progressive constitutional monarchy, was in a position to attempt to make such changes.
And such work could have been easily done with the help of a committee. And hence Sjt.
Bhashyam Aiyengar has shown that the revision of the Hindu Law is absolutely necessary
and no other state than Mysore is better to make such changes.

THE FEDERAL COURT

This chapter is a part of Gandhi’s speech at the Federal Structure Committee on 19 Nov,
1931. Gandhi says that for him the Federal Court is the Supreme Court and the final Court of
Appeal is the Privy Council and it is the palladium of liberty. Gandhi says that once a jurist in
the Transvaal told him that it is possible that there may be no remedy for something at the
moment but there is no law which doesn’t possess a remedy and if a judge says that there is
no remedy then he must be done unseated at the moment. He further added that if the
Federal Court of his dreams comes into being, then no minority would ever be without
justice and they be assured that court will never let them fail, though a puny individual like
Gandhi would fail.

THE PLACE OF THE LAWYERS IN A NON-VIOLENT SOCIETY

This chapters contains a conversation in form of argument between a reader and an editor
arguing on the issue “if two men quarrel they should not go to a law court”. This was a
statement made by an editor and the reader found it astonishing. Then the editor says that
there is nothing to be astonished. It’s true because lawyers just use such situations as an
opportunity to make money. Then he mention that the lawyers have enslaved India and
have accentuated Hindu and Mohamedan dissensions and confirmed English authority.
Then the reader says that it is easy to bring such charges but difficult to prove them because
after all they work or the sake of the people and society. He further added that the
Congress, which the editor praised so much would have been nothing if the lawyers would
not have supported it.
The editor further replied saying he is not saying that they haven’t done even a single good
thing but he wants to say that most of the activities or indulgence in any case by the lawyers
is done mainly for monetary gains. The editor points out that all he’s wanting to say is that
the profession is such that it anyhow teaches immorality. He explains using an example that
if a Hindu and a Mohamedan gets into a fight, a common man would explain them that both
are at fault so just leave it and move on. But a lawyer, he’ll just exaggerate the arguments in
order to make his client win and enrich himself. The editor further says that the lawyers
have done nothing but tightened the English grip because according to him, the British
would not have been able to work if there were no courts. He says there is no need of a
third party between two parties because they know their well-being better than a third
party could understand. And it’s not always like the third parties decision is always right. He
further said that imagine if there were only English pleaders and judges. In that case, they
might only be able to rule over the English. But because our people love quarrels and courts
as fish love water, they have to indulge in all this.

AN ADVOCATE’S DILEMMA
This chapter is a note which was passed by an advocate to Gandhi, in relation to the
resolution of INDEPENDENCE. The lawyer said that negotiating with the King’s rule and
working for Independence would be a type of cheating with my profession. It’s because one
can’t be or work for both the camps like being in courts and showing allegiance to the King
and also being a part of Congress and Congress having declared Independence as its one
and only objective. It has become an intellectual jugglery.
Gandhi replied to this dilemma saying that he sympathizes with the advocate. But according
to Gandhi the argument was much deeper than the advocate has carried it. He says that he
feels the need for independence when he sees the coin or postage with the King’s stamps
and also feels it like belie to his profession of Independence. He also added that leaving
Congress can’t be tackled because it also needs a number of useful and able workers.
Gandhi further added that he feels powerless when he sees that it’s almost impossible to
run Congress without lawyers. Gandhi further says that to work for Congress it’s not
necessary to be a part of it because one can work effectively for Independence even if he is
not a part of Congress, Independence being a birth right. Gandhi also says that we need
several committees, almost one from all seven hundred villages to achieve Independence
and he also thanked God for not making many of them lawyers otherwise almost all of them
must be having this dilemma.
5000 miles Away
The debate in the Assembly over the proposal for the appointment of two additional judges
to the Privy Council for the purpose of having Indian appeals had revived the controversy
about the location of the final court of appeal for Indians.
Indians denied the fact that they had to travel five thousand miles to reach London
to get justice.
Gandhi argues that the Indians have their Privy council in London , the English
should also have their Privy Council in Delhi. He asks if this is the case, what should the
Americans and French do? He asks if the Freanch should have their final court of appeal in
America and should have American have it in French? He wanted to know if that was only
for the Indians or for the people from other countries as well.
Gandhi believes that justice should be given to the people in the final Court of
appeal in their own homes(same countries).
He concludes by saying India would never tolerate the location of her final Court
of appeal any where else but in India.
CIVIL vs Criminal
When a man wilfully breaks his own laws, the disobedience becomes criminal. This is
because he commits the breach not against himself but against someone else. What is true
of the individual is true of the corporation. At that moment one observed the criminal
breach by the government of its own laws throughout India. Sections of Penal Code and the
Criminal Procedure Code were being freely abused. As non-co-operators refrained from
questioning orders issued by officials, bare faced illegalities were being committed by them
with impunity.
Mr.Yakub Hassan had pointed out with great justification that his arrest and
conviction were contrary to the spirit of the Vicerigal pledge. Indeed it was not only the
spirit of Lord Readings pledge, but it was against the letter even of his predecessors
communique in which it was declared in solemn tones as non-co-operation remained non-
violent there would be no repression.
The Magistrate in the case of Mr.Iyer of the Deshabhaktam actually admitted that
there was not at place of violence in the writing that was impeached and that it actually
contained exhortations to non-violence. Mr.Ramaswamy Iyengar, leading pleader of
Coimbatore had been arrested for a spirited letter to The Hindu though there was no
violence in it.
In all these cases there has not been any outbreak of violence as a result of the speeches
and writing’s concern. When a government becomes lawless in an organised manner, civil
disobedience becomes a sacred duty and that is the only remedy open specially to those
who had no hand in the making of the government or its laws. Civil disobedience is a
complete, effective and bloodless substitute.
It had to be admitted that in an abnormal state, even a corrupt and unpopular
government should be in a civilised society like disease and abnormal state.
Any unauthorised outbreak of disobedience in any part of India will most certainly
damage the cause and will betray an unpardonable ignorance of the principles of civil
disobedience.

JUSTICE FROM 6000 MILES

No conquest by force of arms was worth treasuring, if it was not followed by cultural
conquest, if the conquered did not hug their chains and regarded the conqueror as their
benefactor. The different forts of India were no doubt a continuous reminder of the British
might. But the silent conquest of the mind of educated India was a surer guarantee of
British stability than the formidable forts i.e. if the opinion expressed by the distinguished
lawyers in Indian Daily Mail on the very modest proposal of Sir Hari Singh Gour for the
establishment of a S.C. at Delhi was an index of that mind. For, those eminent lawyers
regarded the proposal as premature, in those judgements of the Privy Council sitting 6000
miles away from India would command, in their opinion, greater respect and ensure greater
impartiality. Members of the Privy Council were after all human beings. They had been
found to betray political bias. Their decisions in case involving questions of custom were
often distortions of the reality, not because they were perverse, but because it was not
possible for mortals to know everything.
The distinguished lawyers moreover stated that expenses would not be less because
the final court of appeal was brought down to Delhi. A Scotch friend once told Gandhi that
Englishmen were probably the most extravagant in the world in their tastes and
requirements. He had told Gandhi that hospitals in Scotland were far less expensive fitted
than in England.
The third argument pressed into service in order to oppose the proposed change that
Indian judges would not command the same weight as the wigged ones in White Hall.
Gandhi asks if respect for judgements was commanded by the impartiality, or the location,
or the birth, or the colour of the skin, of judges. He wanted judges of Indian origin to be
appointed. Greater fearlessness and sanity were surely expected of experienced lawyers.
The deciding reason for having S.C in India was that their self-respect demanded it. He
says that we must take pride in being satisfied with the work our own judges gave us. It was
sentiment that ruled the world. Sentiment had to be controlled and regulated. It cannot be
totally eradicated.
As per Gandhi; if it was not wrong to cherish patriotic feeling, it was surely not wrong to
remove the final Court of appeal to Delhi. Just as good government was no substitute for
self-government, good justice, if foreign was no substitute for home-made justice.

Navakal prosecution
Gandhi headed prosecution in the case against SJT. Khadilkar of Navakal. Gandhi
believed, that in truth; it was prosecution.
SJT. Khadilkar had always believed in calling a shade a shade. He was an effective
popular writer. Gandhi knew he was great philosopher
SJT. Khadilkar had once told Gandhi that he used to write plays to pay the fines he
had at times to pay for his journalistic adventures. Gandhi wished that he had not thrown
away money in council’s fees.
Law courts like every other government institute were designed to protect the
government in the time of need. There were practical experiences of that.
When however popular liberty had to be defended in spite of government
opposition, law courts were poor guardians. The less we had to do with them; the better for
us believed Gandhi.
AUNDH CONSTITUTION
(The Aundh Experiment was an early test of village-level self-government in British
India which began in 1938. Mohandas Gandhi, and Maurice Frydman helped to draft the
November Declaration, which handed over rule of Aundh State from the Raja to the
residents, and became law in the Swaraj Constitution of Aundh in 1939. The Aundh
Experiment was an unusual idea in pre-independence India, where the rulers of princely
states were loath to hand over their power).
There were several startling things in the Aundh constitution. Gandhi was concerned
with only 2 things: 1) qualification for the vote and 2) the courts of justice.
Gandhi until then had sworn by simple adult franchise as well as for the illiterate as the
literate. His observations of the working of the congress constitution had altered his
opinion. He came round to the view that a literacy test was necessary for 2 reasons. Voting
had to be regarded as a privilege and therefore carry some qualification. The simplest
qualification as a literacy test.
The Aundh constitution had made primary education free and compulsory. Gandhi had
been assured by Appasaheb that he would see that illiteracy was driven out from Aundh
state within six months. Gandhi hoped that there would be no opposition in the Aundh to
the literacy test.
The second important departure from the ordinary practice was the making of justice in
the lower court free and simple. In a population of 75000; a multiplicity of judges would be
both unnecessary and impossible. If the right type of person was chosen as the chief judge;
he is likely to deal out unadulterated justice as a bench of highly paid judges.

GANDHIJI’S FAMOUS CUSTOM’S DECLARATION

The chapter also consists of Oscar Wilde’s famous statement where he states that he had
nothing to offer to the world other than his genius and this proves that material riches is the
not the only important riches
On 29th of august; Gandhi sailed from Bombay by the S.S. Rajputana as the sole delegate of
the Indian national congress to offend the second round table conference which was being
held in London. He disembarked (got down) at the French sea port of Marseilles in order to
catch a train to London. The French customs officer on duty asked Gandhi whether he held
anything to declare. He promptly replied saying : “I am a poor mendicant my kit consists of
two spinning wheels, a few jail utensils, a can of goat’s milk, four lion clothes, two towels
and my reputation which cannot be worth much”.
He meant to say that his reputation was not worth a lot.

Veiled Marital Law

 Martial law is the imposition of direct military control of normal civilian functions of
government, especially in response to a temporary emergency such as invasion or major
disaster, or in an occupied territory.
Gandhi writes in the young India about the revival of the press act that was supposed to
be dead. This was done through the form of an ordinance brought about but the
commanding offices. The officer here, viceroy whenever he considered it desirable he
supersedes the whole of the law both common and statutes and imposes ordinances on
people to submissive to resent and resist him. However, Gandhi hopes that the time for the
submission to the dictation from British rulers is gone forever. He hopes that the people will
not be frightened by this ordinance.
He urges people to give up their property and their body but not give up their souls. He
says the British might confiscate their material wealth but cannot destroy their speech. They
would never succeed in supressing the people’s voice and at that moment there was hardly
a man or women breathing in India who with every breath In disaffection, sedition,
disloyalty and whatever other term one may use to describe the mentality of the nation
which had set its mind on destroying the existing system of the government.

IMPORTANT EVENTS
ROWLATT ACT
The Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919 , popularly known as the Rowlatt
Act or Black Act, was a legislative act passed by the Imperial Legislative Council in Delhi on
10 March 1919, indefinitely extending the emergency measures of preventive indefinite
detention, incarceration without trial and judicial review enacted in the Defence of India Act
1915 during the First World War. It was enacted in light of a perceived threat from
revolutionary nationalist organisations of re-engaging in similar conspiracies as during the
warwhich the Government felt the lapse of the DIRA regulations would enable. [1][2][3][4][5]
Passed on the recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee and named after its president,
British judge Sir Sidney Rowlatt, this act effectively authorized the government to
imprison any person suspected of terrorism living in the Raj for up to two years without a
trial, and gave the imperial authorities power to deal with all revolutionary activities.

CHAURI CHAURA INCIDENT

Two days before the incident, on 2 February 1922, volunteers participating in the Non-
cooperation Movement protested against high meat prices in the marketplace. The
demonstrators were beaten back by local police. Several of their leaders were arrested and
put in the lockup at the Chauri Chaura police station. In response, a protest against the
police was called for 4 February, to be held in the local marketplace
On 5 February, approximately 2,000 to 2,500 protesters assembled and began marching
towards the market at Chauri Chaura. They had gathered to picket a liquor shop in the
market place. One of their leaders was arrested. Part of the crowd gathered in front of the
local police station shouting slogans demanding the release of their leader. Armed police
were dispatched to control the situation while the crowd marched towards the market and
started shouting anti-government slogans. In an attempt to frighten and disperse the crowd,
the police fired warning shots into the air. This only agitated the crowd who began to throw
stones at the police.
With the situation getting out of control, the Indian sub-inspector in charge ordered the
police to open fire on the advancing crowd, killing three and wounding several others.
Reports vary on the reason for the police retreat, with some claiming that the constables
ran out of ammunition while others claimed that the crowd's unexpectedly assertive
reaction to the gunfire was the cause. In the ensuing chaos, the heavily outnumbered police
fell back to the shelter of the police chowki while the angry mob advanced. Infuriated by the
gunfire into their ranks, the crowd set the chowki ablaze, killing all of the Indian policemen
and chaprassis (official messengers) trapped inside.Most were burned to death though
several appear to have been killed by the crowd at the entrance to the chowki and their
bodies thrown back into the fire. The death count is reported variously in the literature as
22 or 23 policemen killed, possibly due to the subsequent death of an additional burn
victim.