v ·~

Jl'....\'T/CJ:: £OU/ Tl' AND GOOD CONSCIENCE

~ maxim was introduced for the first time in l3engal in 1870 and later in tvladras and
Bombay mofussil. The concept behind this maxim was that in the general scheme of la\\
if on the particular point of dispute before the court there was no Parliam entary law.
No
Regulation and if it did not fall under Muslim or Hind bl laws then the court was to deci<fr
according to J,E and GC.
In the plan of Hastings's only a few topics were spccifi~<l on which the lav. to be applied
was laid uuwn and these were- inheritance, marriage, c.:aste and other religio us 11sages and
in~titutiuns. But this left out a vast number of litigation hea~s uncovered which would
or
cumc up in the courts during the course of trials. There was no specific guidance given
. . wtccl in this plan or in the later Regulations that clearly n t:ntioned as to what law was
1

,ipplica tik tl, these other heads of litigation. The courts were simply directed to acl on J.E
:tiitl ( j(. T hus thi s provided a thcoreticai legal basis for co11rts
to drcide all those c.:ases
lt)I' " hic h 110 law was specifi cally provided.

·r he couns hud 11 0 ~,ource from which they could draw on th~ principles of J.E and GC a.s
1hi s did not have any specific body of law and neither was it precise . It simply meant that
the.: ·cfncre t io11 ' nf the judge was to prevail and thus judges hu<l complete lihert) to decide
on the bdsi:- or ..vhat seemed to them as substantial justi,'e to hoth tht" parties. The
n:::.po11-., ihil i1~ ul <.k ciding what law was applicable to the situation and consonant with
rc Jsc,11 <111J justice n,..,:::i with the judges . It thus thr~v. opLn ·dours
for law making by
1u1.I~~' I ru m l 1 11C case to another. This invariably resulted in chaos and confus
ion in the
to
l'\,unt1·. ·, k~.il -.,~~tcn1 as discn:ti nn and concep ts of J.F. and GC Jifli.!r~<l from judgt:
I.,\

I /1 L' 1n11i:il l"L''-IH'll~ih ilil) of cnrr~·ing out justice .fell 011 the ·:hou ldl.'rs nf the.: C\m1p,111
~, ,

:--L't, ~1111 .., "IJ,, ''L'rl' L ngli shmt!n 1101 well acquain ted with the langua ge. custom!> and
.
111l' llh,d, Pl the peuple and neither did they have a 11.:gal background. T\) prnYide 1
" ' 111<'1, tc th ,:: , 1·1ub:t:m it W J ~ decided that the Nattve
I.aw Offic~rs- the Qazis and
l\111d11-.; - \\ L'rl· lL> providl.! assistam.: c :o the judges in order to guid.c them. As a result manv
.1 t111 1l' , 11 \\ :1:- the I lindu or \1olt3m1111.:dan laws thal \\.'l!l'l.' ai;plicd
to ·man 1 l..'.aSl!S .\\ht!re ;l
" : , , 11\H necl'...,~~ry for lhl' judge to do so. The lay ju,lr,:s instead of finding 0111
L' ia\\'
1h1..·111 •,c h l ' ' .1 It> thl' pn11ciplcs :1pplicablc.: . till'~ mostly asn.:ua ineJ from th~ nati\
L) llitl' t'- ".., 1u \\li ..il principles of thL: concerned personal lav. s •.,as applica hk.
,\nothl.'r : :ic.n1rcl.' that courts drew upon for principles to dcciJ1.:. cases on their 'discrt!tion·
un<ler the ma:-. im of J,E ,l!ld GC was custom.
Thi: ct11 1rts tho ught it le 5 itimatc to look for customs of parties, place. family.
community.
y
tribe M cla:-,, 10 the 1.'. xtc nt it was lcasiblc for a pa1ticular ca:;e. For instance the Bomba
11 igh Cuu1I L· 11li.1nxd a l'.llSlum where by the burial ground was m:iJ1.: s~11.:rcd
and th~·
rL:l.it i , l' '\ o l till· dc( L·as~d had a ri ght to perform rites of the Mohammedans.
-- ln f\ luhnroin Sir Luchmc-~vnr Singh v. Shick Mruwn:r 1Jos~ci n. the Privy Council
rccogni,\.:tt' th~ cu~tonuir)' right of a person 10 set up a forry 011 lus own lnnd umJ 111 "-c loll
11\)1\l :-:trnng~r~ h, t'11rry them :11.: 1\ >Ss.

• Uut with the 11ussagc Llf time u new urknt uti on \\ IIS to b1..• gih'll l~ the max.im of
J.F :111d Gl' and the ~nurts now inh:rprctcd it tu ll\.l'~n f:nglish lu\, in so for H w~s
npplicnbk hJ tlu: Indi11n sit11ntion. Two J cvl·lop111L'llt" furth1..•r slrl'IIJ.!thl'ned this
.0... trend 1 .
_'._ I. Estt\blishmerlt Vof 1 he Highk Cow·t in 1862 I aving Englisluncn who. were
Bnrristl!rs ns Judg~·They knew the English law . nd having o bias fo r lh~ir own
lnw~. ,,vh~n1.:vt:1· foc~d wit,l1 o situution to dc1.:iJc u I the basis of J,f: and C,C, they
! 1 W\.!n: ,q)t to hasc ~h~ifttedtion on English law.
• 2. Th\.! Pri,·y Council being made the highc!>t l·ourt of upp~al there !)tarted n
process of close nssociation of the Privy Council with the Jndinn judicial system
nnd affected it as well. The Privy Council consisted of senior and leading judges
of England who had in depth training in English law. Thus when they were to act
0n J,E and OC they invariably would interject their notion of J,E and GC into the
lndiun leg~! system. ·

Thus the process of reception of English law in India had stnrtcd and through the Privy
Council Engl ish law concepts came to be assimilated with the body and fabric of Indian
law. Thus grndually the English law came to infiltrat~ in India and with the basis of J. E
and GC it became possible for the courts to fill the gaps existing in the substantive law
with the principles underlying the English common law nnd Statute law.
This trend of :ipply ing the principles of English law so for as relevant to the Indian
th
condititins -:0nl in ucd throu,;hout the 19 und 201h century. Th~ numern us courL deci sions
~mrha:: . i7.ing this position led to the entry of English law into the body of India n la\,
inJ11_-c:I:, th "ll t_! h the nrnxi111 of J.E and GC.
1

>-: ot c~1c h and :,undry principli;! of the English IJ\\ was made nrplicahl c to l11c.lia in the
name of J. E. GC without selec tion. There was judicial sdt:cti \'ity in applying the
principles ot' the English law in the Mofussil. The deciding factor '"'as whetht!r the
English law was suitable to the Indian conditions or not. In cases where the law was not
suitable 10 the c011<Jitions the courts refused to apply them.

Unlike England, in India there was no separation maintai ned bctw1.:cn administering
ju sti ce and equi ty nm.I in India thl!y wcre considered part and parcel uf one and the same
l,I\\ . In th1.: 1\ lufu ...,~il both the English common bv,• and English equitable doctrine were
applicJ umk-r J.E and GC. and die condition of suitability. Thus a fusion of the two was
ohtain~u in lndiJ much before it could have been in England. Thus in India common law
liberaliLcd by t!quity was applied and it did not recognize any dichotomy bctwec=n legal
.1nJ C(!11itablc estates or intt.!rcsts. In lndia if property vested in a trustee then he was the
0\\ ner as thl:rC could bC' only one owner in India. Sometimes a friction nrose between

kg~il am! equ i1:1blc interests leading to confusion in law rebting in prupl!rty.

Ti l I l 8S8 the ~ l;1dras Sadar Ad alat followed the rul e that Mc'fl~m.!e
'-~
cmnc to an end in
.1cn1rd:111ce wi th the i11lc11tion of' the parties and in India there w:1s no principle u11alogous

'1
tt)the English l!quitnbk doctrine of ~quity of redemption Thl! urci s11m ch;rngcJ in 1858
.ind the S:l(.br \ dnlat started applying the: principle of l'qui1y o'f rc(kmp1i o11

Under the 111L1:-.im of J, E .UC to ascertain the rule a pplicab le 10 a casc. the court!)
normnlly took recourse to English Common Law. But what was to happen if an English
~ommon law \\ US abrogated by a statute enacted by the British Parliamt!nt.

Secreta ry of State , . Rukhminibai- the questio n was whethe r tht: doctrin e of common
law
L'lllp lu~ mcnt \\'.IS upp li<.:ablc in India. The doctrine was establis hed in
England in I 8(10.
hut it " :i~ criticized in Engl und and abrogated by the Emplo y:.: rs l.iabilil y A<.:I in 1886.
\ lh :r \:on~idc ring all th is Nagrur High Cou rt ruled thnt the dortrin::: v. as not applica
ble in
lnJia.

,\ ;arcnJr a Nath Sircar \'. Kamal Basini- Privy Council warned against the use of English
cJses in the interpretation of wills made by Indians. Prof. Jain opines that in India
law
and equity \\'Cr1.· treated as o ne and the same system of law.

1 \'. tL rs,s
l he ,1prlic,1ti~1 n ol° English legal principles undoubtedly initiated the process of the
In \.'. in r m~nt 1) f a numbe r o f h r~nchcs of law in Ind ia fo r which there were no r rcceden
ts
creatin g
..:arl ier. ·1he .:,u1.: io t'conom ic ~~enari L' \\ as undL·rgoing ~onsta nt chang~ s und thw,
tom~ vf
ncv. h uman rd utio n~h ips for\\ hich the Hindu or Moham medan la,\ s anJ th ~ cus
th<: c 0 u ntr y \\ Crc not "ell dc,clopcd to provide guidance to this ne\.,ly emerging social
-.1ruc1 urcs and condit io ns nm.I thus the English laws proved to be a usdul source .

l he l.1..:t th,ll umk r the ma'< im of J,E, GC the English lav; wa, to be the so urce mad~
sure
atl)' legal
th.ti in~tcaJ u l burro w ing legal princip ks from any" here at random from
-.~stL'lll, th~ Judge!'> \\at: to nuw look into 0 ne soun:I! and this led to sumc 1;:lemcnt o f
CL' rl ai nt ) in ,111 0 1ha,\ i ::ic u11ct:rta in kgal sy ::il~m. '

r hc ex isting dichoto my bet\,ee n the mofuss il and the Presidency in terms of law was also
reduced 10 :.l grcat extent as the English law was used commonly in both courts.
Yt.:t some <li lk rt.:rn.:c..: s occurred in the existence of law in the Mofussil und Pn.:side
ncy
I m, 11 111ainl ) dul.' In the difl~rcnccs in nppronch of th~ courts. For cxump k- the rule of
d:1mdu p;1t ,1pplicd 10 the Hindus in the Presidency To,vns but not in Mofussil.

rhcn: wc1t: dr:1\\'h:1d.s us wt:11 invlllVL'<l in the process of rccl'i ving English Jaw through
1udici:tl c.k<.:i :--tlHlS. ·1he adoptio n of
the English law hall to be sdl.!ctivc and a cautious
p1occ:--~. F1 >1 th1.: Prl.!sidency town ii wus planned that only suc h English
law as was
r, c, .11l'11t 111 1726 wns to be ~1pplic-<l such that it ~uitc J the lnJian Clrnuitions. ·1he judicinl
 • 111, ' 111 • l'r "d1k 11,•, 11111 v 1l1111oo~• 111,, ·,
..,~kdl\ It, ,,.,, nb\, \1' \1r ,I pt11 l 111 .I I (, I ,tit \\ 1 1,,, Ill l ~ • •
\\'l' I\' ti.) I~~ upl'll\'d 111di1.·i,,u, lv thnt we1<· l.'Xtnnl 111 172(,, 111 the Mol\1~~11 '.11·c11~ tlW t.: > ' "
1 111
11
\\ \' (\' 11{1\ lt1111 h'd I\\ lhV",1' l11\\ ·t I II~ 1.:111 111 ~ l1 ;1d Ill 1l ll l!ll 1111d1.! 1t{'' , I ll'dl i• lll- 111 ~\ ', Il l
d1ud11,1 1 ,\111, h 1' 1111\' ljlk ,d' ,11 . ., l·11r li~I, 1,1\\ \\, I'• upplll·" ''"' 11 1 lihlr. 1 \! , Il l \ ,d liil' '
11

l'"'"'•'l'"-'"' " ~ I\ ' 11,11 ,q1pl 11:d ,1.., tlw ~ ,,1..' I \' 1111111d 111 h1• u,1..,t,11t :1hk IP 1111.' l11d1 ,111 ~, 11,, l_11 1,1J1•.
, 111111.: 1•111,,.., 1,d 11\\.' I n~l1 :,.h luw th,11 ,,1. 1 11,,• ~1111,1hk· ll ' lnil111 , 11111\' 11t.11 \\1.'11.' 1~·i.l 11rn.:,tl " '
,,..:,i:
l)(ll lll\! 1) \' ,ir
prndllch p,.-~llll lll' 1.\ )1ld1tlom, 111 l•.llijl,111\_I ;11'1.: inw.l~ 11ppl1i:u hl_1.· In .1ml1 u
/ \ , .1 1 \::-,1111 ,.._1111i.: 1uks lh11 t W\!IC nut with th..: i.: u~1.._,11,~. l111b11 -. 11nJ i11"illlut11J11li ol l11d1o1 ,il'n)
or
1.·. 11tt·1\.:\l 1h ...· . .:11u ntt ) I hw, 11\1: "'l'kr ti,111 pl'inl.!ipk"i w:1s lll)I ,.:urrkd o ul ,·. .·ry 1.'Hl'l.'fllil~ nr
judi( 1ou"I:.

Ill 1..' hh.' 1 11.) ,.: lh·d, inl ilt 1t1 lilrn ur ,~1:hn i~.d ru k~ ur I ll t,: ii , h Ith, it \\ .I '- dc1.:idi:d 111.11 II
t ·1,d1li1.:.i1h1n Ill' l:1" ,h0uld wki...· pltt1.:1:. Th~r<: \\t:l\' ,·:1~1 gaps i11 th1.· ~uh~1111111, 1.' l.i\\
._,i1,1~l: ts ll1r ,, hid1 1h1.:rc ,, l' I c Ill) rnlcs 1111d thus us pul l'urth by R:111~ in, "th\.! u, g~m ~ vi'
th,.: wo, k l::iy p11rt ly in the need tu pn.:v1:11t lm.linn i.:oul'ls frum lilling ~~,, ,., in thi.: 1~m h>
t,,111\1\\lll~ li.iph,11;1 1d fr0 111 EngJ111d rnk s whk h hi.Id gro\\11 up in tlw -;lw<.'i ,il l't1llf 1..• \t of
I n~ll', h hi~t11r~...
0

\ ,~ ,ti.. m nl' \,iw lh,111..k pl.' nd , C\11 (;1, 1,.• l.1" !'or it:-. lo u11d,11i, ,11. dl',·i..· l,1p111l.' 11 I and . .·,p11,11ion
1, q,1 ll • bi..· 1111ci..·11.,i n ,111~1 i11..:\1h..: rL·11l. . l..11 i; ...• 11u111hl.'r nl' p11 i11 h \\ ill "L' kr't 1111"1..'llll.'d
1
\

•111 L• 1 ,ul.'. h " ':'l~ll\ ti ll thl· hi ~hi:,t trib unal ..:oukl adjui.:Jtl' on tl wm. \l ~l1 tl11.• judi~i.il
1 :,>1wu1H.:l.'.11 1i..·,1t-; 11n ,i milar poinh \\(,11\d be ini.:0111.'rL'll t: Tlw~ w,,uld o lh:n be- d1l'l~·n:111 :JS
1h..- 1udgi:-; , 1 1.1 u\J bi: .111 t tL' be i11l lu1,.•n1.:..:d h~ th<.:ir l'" n 1101 i,,1,-.; ·1hi , k :1~1.., tilt i111:1t1.: h l l ' :111
1n1.1 l.'. ,s...i..· tn ~'. -. ...·,;i:nt rud k ial , 11..'\\~. ,.\ ~ t:lintli,.:ting t:,ampk, !;!l> t1 n 111L·11..•J , 111~. iii~· 11,1sk
ti l .1~ci.: rtui11111 g tli i..: IJ\\ upplic~1bk 11 1 ~1 p,,rti~td~r ~~1, c h1..' 1..' ll llH:-.: dirtiL'11l1 I hi: ri l. .'. ht elf'
orr1..·11 l tu 1,\ ,1 11 r 11h>1 <.: co urt-; .ittri hut..:-; furthL·r tu 1111 incr..::1~ed t111u:11 :1in1\ ,,!' l.1 ;..., an .I
k•,hlc.; \ 1) tl 1t 1·11.. ull:, 111 th~ ucl111111i ..,lraliu11 1.> t' j u~til't: ,I', th..: rrtll\l1lllll'l..'lll..:11l (;r lhL' 1111:! lh.' "I (
l.'.uurl \\ Util d 111.>\ put :111 i..:nd t1.., J 11ub1. Dilli..:n:111..:i: 1.11° l1pi11i,1n ,_. , i:-. kd 1,,·1,, . .·l · 11 llh· I li i.::/1
( 1ll1l l :1ml 1'11.. P, I\\ ( \\U l11 ~i l (II) lilL' ;1pplil':1hili1 ~· ,,r ;1 part1l'lrl :1r nik (\I tli1.· I· n12 li!-- h i:m ' ~

111 I X3: 11\..:11.· L'\l"ll<.:d ~1 11l111Jbl..'r ,ti' ( 'hi1..·1· l'Oll lh i11 l11d1a ~ub jn·t ti, 11 11.· k _i:.. l.11 1\v p, ,,\\.'I' ,,1
tlll.'. l' n:~ickr11.:ic::-. :111d nl I cstabl j..,11,:c.l b) difh.:rcnt uu thciri til's- rn:·:tl c li:irkr,; ,111\.l 111'11.:rs
c.k-1,, i..:d .iu1h11rit) f'n 1111 the Com pan:. Eac h of th1,.•111 WL'ri..: indepL'll (knt ,,r i..·ac li othL'r Jnd
ihu~ \\oul<l pn1, iJ1..· uiffcn:nt , iL'\\ S 1.H1 thL' intcrprL'tati<.1 11 l)f Lt" and thu:-. thr..· 1.1:-. k nl
h.1,·ing ~1 unil"u rm intcrprl'lati on \\ould hc impossibk .

1hu!) thi!> \\ uu ld kad tn ~ numbl'r of dl'ci sions- opp\)Sed tn i:ach othl'r ~L'l al l ha, lll k'. L'quul
,1ut h1)1i1 , ,111,J 1hu, ri..·..,ulting in la\\" b..:ing UllCL'rtoin. bulky ~111 inconsistent.

I h t:-i u11~:.1ti~r':..ictory st:.1t1..: of aflairs in th..: legal systl!m t:xistcd for long. But o, er tim..: thl'
11,:ed tn in,pill\ l! thL· l1.!gal sy5tem was recogni zed and ~hus ~l~c r_rocess_ of Codification
. ,, .., rnitiatcd
1
I hough trm:l.!ahk to 1833. the proc1:ss of codtt 1cat1on gamed momentum
,,nl: .ll tl.' r I X~~ -