PART II

THE LAW AND THE LAWYERS

- M. K. Gandhi
1. THE EARLY LIFE OF GANDHIJI AS A LAW STUDENT

Introduction
Gandhiji passed his matriculation examination in the year 1887. His exam centres
were in Ahmedabad and Bombay. Due to the general poverty of his family, the
Kathiawadi students preferred the nearer and cheaper centres. Gandhiji, as he was
from the Kathiawadi family, he was forced to write his examination in Ahmedabad,
which was near his house. It was his first journey from Rajkot to Ahmedabad. After
the matriculation, Gandhiji’s elder brother wanted him to pursue his studies in college.
He joined Samaldas College in Bhavnagar. He felt very difficult to grasp the lectures
of his professors, who were first rate and he found himself entirely at sea, marking his
own fault of being raw. By the end of the first term he returned home.
Mavji Dave and his Advice
Mavji Dave was a very old friend and adviser of Gandhiji’s family. He was a shrewd
and a learned Brahman who used to visit Gandhiji’s family during their vacations. He
continued his visit to the family even after the death of Gandhiji’s father. During such
a visit, he made an enquiry about Gandhi and his education and he learnt the fact that
Gandhi was doing his BA degree from Samaldas College, which according to him,
would not result in turning up Gandhi to be a Diwan. Mavji advised Gandhiji that a
degree would not make him a Diwan and he could only get a post that paid 60 rupees
per month if he graduated with this degree. Thus Mavji advised him to go to England
in order to study law. He cited his son, Kevalram, as the real exemplifier, who
completed law in England.
Gandhiji’s Desire for Medical Profession
Gandhiji expressed his desire to study medicine. His elder brother recalled the words
of his father with regard to studying medicine. He said that his father had already
made it very clear that the medical profession was not the right choice for the
Vaishnav family as it deals with dissecting bodies. Mavji revealed that the medical
profession is also a good field of study, but it could not give Diwanship to Gandhiji
like law. He also said that his son Kevalram had many friends in England and they
would extend all sorts of supports to Gandhiji in England.
Gandhiji’s Relief from Studying a Degree
This advice of Mavji, who was also called Joshiji, brought relief into Gandhiji’s
difficult studies with which he was struggling. Joshiji concluded his advice by saying
that he would expect updates about Gandhiji’s preparations for England during his
next visit. Hearing this, Gandhiji felt very happy as he could escape from writing the
examination at Samaldas College. The idea of parting with Gandhiji was not accepted
by his mother. She wished Gandhiji to approach the eldest member of the family on
whose consent she might think of England for her son’s education. Gandhiji soon left
for Porbandar. It took him five days of bullock cart journey and then a camel ride to
Porbandar. He reached his uncle’s house and found him on his way to a pilgrimage.
Uncle didn’t seem interested because he was living the last days of his life. Since he
was not assured of his own life, he hesitated to grant permission to Gandhiji and
suggested him to seek his mother’s permission. On requesting him to provide a
recommendation note to meet Mr. Lely, the Administrator of Porbandar State, he told
Gandhiji to seek an appointment and meet him directly. Gandhiji later approached Mr.
Lely, who curtly asked him to complete his BA first. He strictly refused to provide any
help.
The Grief of Gandhiji’s Mother
Gandhiji trusted his wife’s ornaments which could fetch about two to three
thousand rupees and on his elder brother hoping that he could arrange money from
somewhere. Gandhiji’s second target was to convince his mother, who had heard
from the neighbours that people in England consumed meat and liquor. Gandhiji
convinced his mother saying that he was her son and he would not touch those
things. Then she said that she would pay a visit to Becharji Swami, another family
adviser and his preparation for England would be fixed if he agreed to say ‘yes’.
After meeting the swami, he made Gandhiji to administer three vows that he would
not touch wine, woman and meat. Thus, Gandhi got his mother’s permission to
prepare for England.
Preparation for the Bar
Gandhiji knew that bar exams needed not much effort and thus he never felt pressed
for time. He was worried about his weak English and thought of getting some literary
language degree as well. One of his friends suggested him the London matriculation
which could add up to his general knowledge. It was compulsory to have Latin and a
modern language. Gandhiji decided to choose Latin which was a mandatory language
to lawyers and French as he had already begun with it. He prepared very seriously but
found himself ploughed in Latin. However, he still had acquired a taste in Latin. He
joined a private matriculation class. Examinations were held every six months and he
had only five months at his disposal to write the examination. As he considered it a
period of intensive study, he wrote the examination successfully.
A New Experience
Keeping terms were considered as one of the most eminent part of being called to the
bar. Attending six out of twenty four dinners in a term had meant reporting at the fixed
hours, remaining present throughout the dinner. He often ate nothing at these dinners
as he preferred to eat only bread, boiled potato and cabbage. The motive behind these
dinners was to create opportunities for the law students to approach the benchers and
have a conversation. With all these efforts, Gandhiji passed the examination and was
called to the bar on 10th June 1891. He was enrolled at the High court of England the
next day of the same year and he sailed back home later. Although he passed the exam
he had no end to his helplessness and fear to practice law.
Gandhiji’s Helplessness
As a law student, Gandhiji faced many consequences in his life while preparing to go
to England and for the bar. According to Gandhiji, it was not so easy to
practice at the bar. He had gone through many legal maxims but did not
know how to apply those maxims in the context of the cases in a trial. He was not
courageous with regard to handling and dealing the cases. He had no idea about
Indian law, Hindu and Mahommedan Law. He was also not well-versed at drafting
plaints as he felt himself completely at sea. In this situation, Gandhiji’s friends
advised him to meet great people in order to get exposure in the field of his career.
Conclusion
Responding to the advice given by his friends, Gandhiji tried to meet Sir Pherozeshah
Mehta, who was known for roaring like a lion while arguing cases in the court. At the
same time, Gandhiji was not bold enough to meet such a stalwart as he felt insecure to
meet such a great man. He also doubted whether he was able to acquire such a legal
acumen as Sir Pherozeshah Mehta. Then his friends suggested him to seek Dadabhai
Naoroji’s advice. At last his friends insisted him to meet Sir Frederick Pincutt, who was
a renowned and famous barrister. Gandhiji approached him with his little knowledge
of reading and gained the courage and confidence to meet him. Sir Frederick suggested
some books for Gandhiji in order to enrich his reading knowledge and gain confidence.
Thus, Gandhiji was completely at sea in the early part of his life.

2. GANDHIJI’S FIRST CASE AND FIRST SHOCK

Introduction
Mahatma Gandhi was widely recognized as the leader of Indian nationalism in
British-ruled India who employed nonviolent civil disobedience for civil rights across
the world. He earned the esteem of his colleagues as well as that of the magistrates and
judges who had come to respect him for clarity of thought and expression, legal
acumen and intellectual vigour. He scrupulously avoided aggressive advocacy and
relied entirely on facts and reasoning. According to him, “the greatest wrong a lawyer
could commit in the process of law was to be a party to the miscarriage of justice.”
Gandhi's Arrival in Rajkot
Gandhiji’s elder brother received him at the dock. He had already built high hopes on
Gandhiji. The desire for wealth, name and fame was great according to Gandhiji's
brother. He was very generous that he took up the household expenses to become top-
heavy. He left no stone unturned in preparing the field for Gandhiji’s practice.
Gandhiji's brother took him to Nasik before going to Rajkot, gave him a bath in the
sacred river as part of fulfilling the customs of caste. Gandhiji never liked all these
practices but he was bound to do so as his brother's love towards him was boundless.
Reformation at Home
The necessity for food 'reform' was obvious. Tea and coffee had already found their
place in the house. Gandhi's brother thought it would be fit to keep some sort of
English atmosphere ready for Gandhiji on his return, and to that end, crockery and
such other things, which used to be kept in the house only for special occasions, turned
out to be usage in general. Gandhiji's 'reform' put the finishing touch. He introduced
oatmeal porridge and replaced tea and coffee with cocoa. But, in truth, it became an
addition to tea and coffee. Boots and shoes were already there. He completed the
Europeanization by adding the European dress.
Gandhi's First Case in Bombay
Gandhiji could not find any green pasture for his profession in Rajkot after his return
from England. Gandhiji’s friends advised him to go to Bombay for some time in order
to gain experience of the High Court. Gandhiji took up the suggestion and went to
Bombay. In Bombay, he took up the case of one Mamibai. It was a 'small cause'.
Gandhiji was told to pay some commission to the tout but he emphatically declined.
Gandhiji was content with Rs.300/- a month for his expenses. He gave no commission,
but got Mamibai's case all at the same for Rs.30/- as his fees. This was Gandhiji's debut
in the Small Causes Court. He appeared for the defendant to cross- examine the
plaintiff’s witnesses. He stood up to argue the case but he felt like his heart sank into
his boots. His head was reeling and he felt as though the whole court was doing
likewise. He could think of no question to ask. Finally he sat down and told the agent
that he could not conduct the case and that he could better engage Patel and have the
fee back from him. Mr. Patel, to whom, the case was a child's play, was duly engaged
for Rs. 51. Gandhiji left the court in utter shame and nervousness even without
knowing whether his client won or lost her case.
Drafting Plaints and Memorials
Gandhiji left Bombay disappointedly and went to Rajkot where he set up his own
office. He received scores of assignments to draft applications and memorials on an
average Rs. 300/- a month. He had to thank the influence of his brother rather than his
own ability. Gandhiji confesses that he had to compromise the principle of giving no
commission. Commissions had to be paid to the touts in Bombay but they had to be
paid to vakils who briefed him at Rajkot. Gandhiji felt that if he had to practice as a
barrister, he could not press his principle regarding commissions in such cases.
Routine Walk in Bombay
Although Gandhiji lived in Girgaum, Bombay, he hardly ever took a carriage or a
tramcar to his office. He had made it a rule to walk to the High Court. It took
him quite forty-five minutes, and of course, he invariably returned home by foot. He
had injured himself in the heat of the sun. This walk to and fro the court saved a fair
amount of money, and when many of his friends in Bombay used to fall ill, Gandhiji
did not remember having once had an illness. Even when he began to earn money, he
kept up the practice of walking to and fro the office, and he was still reaping the
benefits of that practice.
Meeting with Ranasaheb
Once Gandhiji's brother was the secretary and adviser to the late Ranasaheb of
Porbandar and he was suspected of giving wrong advice in his office. It created
prejudiced relationship between the officer and Gandhiji’s brother. Gandhiji knew this
officer when he was in England and both of them had a very good acquaintances.
Gandhiji’s brother asked Gandhiji to curry favour from the officer but Gandhiji did
not like this idea at all and suggested his brother to proceed it as per the law by
submitting a petition. His brother did not relish this advice. Gandhiji knew that he
had no right to approach him and was fully conscious that he was compromising his
own self-respect. He sought an appointment to meet the officer for the sake of his
brother.
Gandhiji’s First Shock
The moment the officer saw Gandhiji in his chamber he said that Gandhiji surely had
not come there to abuse the acquaintance. As Gandhiji opened his case, the sahib
became impatient and he was not ready to hear anything. He suggested Gandhiji to
inform his brother to apply through the proper channel but Gandhiji went on with his
story. The sahib got up angrily and told Gandhiji to leave. As Gandhiji was reluctant,
he called his peon and ordered him to show Gandhiji the door. The peon placed his
hands on Gandhiji's shoulders and ushered him out of the room. Gandhiji was very
much angry as this was the first shocking experience and he did not know how to
proceed against the sahib.
Suggestion from Sir Pherozeshah Mehta
Gandhiji sent the papers of his case against the sahib to Sir Pherozeshah Mehta
through the vakil who had engaged him and pleaded for his advice. Sir Pherozeshah
Mehta told Gandhiji that such things were quite common experience of many vakils
and barristers. He was still fresh from England and hot-blooded. He did not know the
British officers and let him tear up the note and pocket the insult. He would gain
nothing by proceeding against the sahib but, on the contrary, he will very likely ruin
himself. The advice was as bitter as poison to Gandhiji but he had to swallow it. He
pocketed the insult but also profited by it as he never placed himself such a false
position and tried to exploit their friendship in this way.
Conclusion
Gandhiji, very early in his career as a lawyer, learnt the importance of studying deeply
and delving into the facts of a case. He would often express that if the facts were taken
care of, the law would take care of itself. A true lawyer was one who would always
place truth and service in the first place and the emolument of the profession in the
next. Gandhiji adhered to and followed this method in his political career too.
In some of the martial law cases about which he had occasion to write in the columns
of Young India, he took meticulous care about his facts and expressed his annoyance
if they were not properly handled or the case was spoiled by the improperly worded
and angry arguments on the part of the lawyer.

3. GANDHIJI’S EXPERIENCES IN PRETORIA AND THE CASE IN MEMAN

FIRM

Introduction
This essay throws light on Gandhiji’s experiences in Pretoria and the efforts taken by
him to understand the nature of the case in Meman firm and preparation for the
proceedings. This is the first experience for Gandhiji to deal the case for a very big
company Dada Abdullah and Co., Gandhiji admits himself that the case of Dada
Abdullah was not a small one. When Gandhiji widens his acquaintances with the
Indians living in Durban, the firm receives a letter stating that Sheth Abdullah should
go to Pretoria to prepare for the case and Sheth Abdullah requests Gandhiji to go there
to deal the case.
Sheth Abdullah's Case
Gandhi asked Sheth Abdullah’s clerks to explain the case and he found that the case
related to the intricacies of debit and credit entries in the books of accounts. During
his stay in Zanzibar, Gandhiji got the opportunity to see a Parsi lawyer examining a
witness regarding credit and debit entries in the accounts book. He could not find the
meaning of the word P. Note in the dictionary and the clerk clarified it as Promissory
Note. He had the confidence in Sheth Abdullah that his profound practical knowledge
would serve the purpose of winning the case. After that Gandhiji purchased a book
on book keeping and studied to understand the case completely. Finally he was
prepared to go to Pretoria.
Preparation for Pretoria
Abdullah Sheth agreed with Gandhiji and wrote to his lawyer for arranging lodgings.
He said that he would also write to his friends there but advised him to avoid
familiarity with them as the other party had much influence in Pretoria. Gandhiji told
Sheth Abdullah not to worry as not a soul should know anything confidential between
them. He also promised that he would take measures to suggest Tyeb Sheth to come
to an understanding and settle the case out of the court. On the eighth day of his arrival
in Durban, Gandhiji left for Pretoria.
Johnston’s Family Hotel
Gandhiji expected someone on behalf of Dada Abdullah's attorney to meet him at the
Pretoria station but no one was there to receive him. He was perplexed and wondered
where to go as he feared that no hotel would accept him. He also told that Pretoria
station (1893) was quite different from what it was in (1914) as the lights were burning
dimly and there were few travellers. He handed over the ticket to the ticket collector
and directly asked him about some small hotels for his stay. The ticket collector
politely replied that he could not be of any considerable help. An American Negro,
who was overhearing the conversation, took to Johnston’s Family Hotel of which the
proprietor was an American who was very well known to him.
Colour Prejudice in the Hotel
That American Negro pulled Mr. Johnson, the owner of the hotel, aside and spoke to
him and the latter agreed to accommodate him for the night, on one condition that the
dinner should be served in his room because the owner was slightly afraid that his
European customers would be offended. Gandhiji thanked him for accommodating
him for the night and agreed with all the conditions. In the meantime, Mr. Johnson
came to Gandhiji’s room and told him that he had spoken to other guests about him
and they would never mind him having his food in the dining room. The next day he
called the attorney, Mr. A.W Baker. He received him warmly and told him that there
was a fearful amount of color prejudice and therefore it was not easy to find
lodgings for people like him. He took Gandhiji to a poor woman’s house where she
was ready to accept for 35 shillings a week for vegetarian food.
Dada Abdullah's Suit
According to Gandhiji, Dada Abdullah's was not a small case. The suit was for 40000
pounds. It was full of complexities of accounts. Most part of the claim was based
on promissory notes and on the specific performance of a promise to deliver the
promissory note. The defense was that the promissory notes were fraudulently taken
and lacked sufficient consideration. Both the parties of the case had engaged the best
attorneys and counsel. Gandhiji involved himself in studying the case with zeal and
enthusiasm.
Gandhiji's Preparation for the Case
Gandhiji read all the papers about the transactions. His client was a man of great
ability and reposed absolute confidence in him which rendered his work easily. He
made a fair study of book keeping. His capacity for translation was improved with
translating the correspondence mostly in Gujarati. He took maximum interest in the
preparation of the case. While collecting the facts of the case, Gandhiji recalled the late
Mr. Pincutt's advice- 'facts are three-fourths of the law'. He approached Mr. Leonard
for help and felt that the facts of the case were very strong. Mr. Leonard assured
Gandhiji that 'if we take care of the facts of the case, the law will take care of itself'. He
also told that facts means truth and once we adhere to the truth the law comes to their
aid naturally. On re-examination of the facts, he saw them in an entirely new light.
Tyeb Sheth and Arbitration
Gandhiji approached Tyeb Seth and requested him to go for the arbitration while
suggesting that if an arbitrator was appointed they could find a solution in this case
as soon as possible. He suggested that the lawyers’ fees were so rapidly growing up
that they were enough to devour all the resources of the clients and the winning party
could never recover all the costs incurred and the actual cost between attorney and
client was being much higher. Gandhiji felt that it was his duty to defend both parties
and bring them together. He strained every nerve to bring about compromise and at
last Tyeb Seth agreed. After that, an arbitrator was appointed and the case was won
by Sheth Abdullah but the settlement of the case did not satisfy Mr. Gandhi as Tyeb
Seth couldn't pay the whole amount of 37000 pounds leading to bankruptcy all of a
sudden. Gandhiji suggested payment in installments over a long period of time.
Conclusion
Gandhiji was very happy not only for settling the case but also for bringing both the
parties together. He suggested that if both the parties came to an understanding, they
would save a lot of unnecessary litigation expenses. Hence, his joy was boundless after
settling the case. He learned the true practice of law and how to find out the better
side of human nature. He realized that the true function of a lawyer is to unite the two
parties rather than splitting them apart.

4. GANDHIJI’S PUBLIC WORK IN SOUTH AFRICA

Introduction
Gandhiji’s visit to Ranasaheb, the Indian-British officer, had gone undeniably awry.
After having mentioned his problem regarding the prejudice against his brother to the
officer, he was immediately reprimanded for coming to take advantage of his
acquaintance with the officer. Gandhiji was then expelled from the office and was
taken out by his peon.
Gandhiji’s Frustration
While Gandhiji was definitely at fault for having gone to the officer, the officer’s anger
and actions were beyond reason for Gandhiji’s error. The power had led to his
corruption and intoxicated him. Gandhiji discovered that it was habitual for him to
disregard his visitors. Gandhiji had no desire to appease the officer. Since Gandhiji
had once threatened to sue him, Gandhiji did not like to remain hushed. Fights
between states and officers for the sake of power were commonplace. Indians were
glorified almost above the British officers themselves for betraying their countrymen.
Gandhiji found the atmosphere oppressive and poisonous. He thus became extremely
despondent.
Offer from Meman Firm
During that period, a Meman firm from Porbandar had written to his brother making
a proposal, stating that they had a large establishment in South Africa and had a case
in court which had been going on for a long period of time with the claim of £40,000.
They had hired the assistance of several attorneys and counsellors. If Gandhiji were to
work there, he could be of service to them and also to himself. He would be able to
edify them and he would also have the privilege of seeing new parts of the world and
making new acquaintances.
Meeting with Sheth Abdullah
When Gandhiji was introduced to Sheth Abdul Karim Jhaveri, a partner of Dada
Abdulla and Co., guaranteed that it would not be a strenuous job and Gandhiji would
make acquaintances with the Europeans. Gandhiji made enquiries regarding the
period of requirement of his services and remuneration. Sheth assured him that he
would not require his services for more than a year and he would also be paid with a
first class return fare and a sum of £105.
Leaving for South Africa
When Gandhiji was leaving for South Africa, he did not feel the pain of detachment
that he felt when he had departed for England. This time Gandhiji felt the pangs of
parting with his wife, especially for he had been blessed with another child. Since his
return from Europe, they had lived very little together and he had become her mentor
in making certain reforms in the household. However, the attraction moving to South
Africa made parting more bearable.
Berth in Captain’s Cabin
Gandhiji was to get his passage to South Africa through Dada Abdulla and Co. But no
berth was available in the boat, and if he did not sail then, he should be stranded in
Bombay. The agency said that they had tried their best to procure a first-class passage
but since a Governor-General was travelling in the boat, they were unable to secure a
berth unless he was prepared to go on deck. Being a barrister, he felt embarrassed to
travel as a deck passenger. With the agency’s permission, he set out to secure it
himself. He went on board and made the acquaintance of the chief officer. He stated
that they normally did not have this kind of rush. Gandhiji asked whether the Captain
could squeeze him in, who, after surveying Gandhiji said that there was just one way.
There was an extra hammock in his deckhouse, which was usually not available for
passengers, but he was prepared to give it to Gandhiji, who thanked him profusely. In
April 1893 he set forth in full of zest to try his luck in South Africa.
Arrival in Lamu
They reached the port of Lamu in about thirteen days. The Captain and Gandhiji
became great friends and had played chess together. The vessel remained at moor for
some three to four hours and he landed to see the port. After Lamu the next ports were
Mombasa and Zanzibar. He stayed about eight to ten days and then changed to
another boat. As they had to remain in there for a week, he took quarters in the town.
Gandhiji mentioned that the vegetation of Zanzibar could only be compared to that of
Malabar. They stopped next at Mozambique and then reached Natal towards the close
of May.
In Natal
At Port Natal, Abdulla Sheth was there to receive Gandhiji, as the ship arrived at the
wharf while he watched the people going on board to meet their friends, he noticed
that the Indians were not respected much. He recognized an air of haughtiness in
those who knew Sheth and it grieved Gandhiji. Abdulla Sheth had gotten used to it.
Those who looked at Gandhiji did so with interest as his attire differentiated him from
other Indians. He looked like an imitation of the Bengal pugree.
Sheth Abdulla’s Suspicious Nature
Gandhiji was taken to the firm’s quarters and showed into the chamber set apart from
him, next to Abdulla Sheth’s. Sheth thought Gandhiji’s brother had sent him a white
elephant since he dressed and lived in a manner which stuck Sheth as pretentious.
Abdulla Sheth was almost illiterate but had great reserves of experience.
He had an incredible intellect and was entirely aware of it. By practice he had picked
up an ample amount of English that served him for carrying all his businesses. The
Indians held him in very high esteem since his enterprise was one of the largest Indian
enterprises. His only fault was his suspicious nature.
Turban issue
Soon after Gandhiji’s arrival, Sheth took him to see the Durban court where he was
introduced to several people seated next to the attorney. The Magistrate, after staring
at him, asked him to remove his turban. After Gandhiji refused and left the court,
Abdulla Sheth explained that some Indians were obliged to cast off their turbans. He
stated that only the Mussalman can wear turban and Indian turban was considered
an insult in the court. On the whole Gandhiji liked Abdulla Sheth's advice not to wear
English hat as it was meant for the European waiters. He wrote to the press about the
incident with defending the wearing of his turban in the court and made him an
'unwelcomed visitor'. In this manner he was given advertisement in South Africa
within a few days of his arrival.
Indians- Three Classes
As time passed, Gandhiji saw that the Indians were divided into different sects, the
Mussalman merchants who referred to themselves as ‘Arabs’, the Hindus and
the Parsi clerks. The Parsi clerks would refer to themselves as Persians. The largest
class consisted 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, the corrupt form of
the English word 'agreement'. The indentured Indians were further divided into three
classes, the Hindus, Mussalmans and Christians.
Coolie Barrister
The Englishmen called the labour class 'coolies'. As a large number of Indians
belonged to this section of society, all Indians were known as 'coolies', or 'samis' where
sami was the Tamil suffix for names which was derived from the Sanskrit ‘swami’
meaning master. At that same time the Indians were called ‘sami’ sarcastically as a
sign of humiliation. Gandhiji raised voice against the issues of the indentured
labourers. Hence, he was known as a 'coolie barrister'. Later, the word 'coolie' became
a common designation for all Indians.
Conclusion
Though Gandhiji faced many challenges of aggression, he did not become violent,
instead he won cases through his power of patience. He continually fought for equality
and adhered to the principles of justice. Even after travelling abroad he did not give
up his culture, instead upheld it through his journey as a part of respect for his
heritage. Gandhiji mingled with people in South Africa, took part in their daily
sufferings, understood their situations and solved their problems through non-
violence.

5. INDIAN FRANCHISE AND GANDHIJI’S SETTLEMENT IN NATAL

Introduction
After settling the dispute between Sheth Abdullah and Tyeb Sheth, Gandhiji thought
of leaving Pretoria and he went back to Durban and began to make preparations for
leaving for India. But Abdullah Sheth was not ready to let him go to India without a
proper send-off, so he organized a grand party in Gandhiji’s honour at Sydenham. He
stayed there for the entire day.
Indian Franchise
While at the party, he was reading the newspaper, Gandhiji saw a paragraph under
the
caption ‘Indian Franchise’ which gave reference to the bill sought to deprive the
Indians of their right to elect members of the Natal Legislative Assembly. Gandhiji
was perplexed as he did not have an idea about that bill and he inquired Abdullah
Sheth. He stated that he just read the newspaper to ascertain the daily market rates
and the eyes and ears of the legislature were the European attorneys. Gandhiji was
shocked to know that no one had come to support Sheth Abdullah even though there
were many young educated Indians. Abdullah Sheth explained Gandhiji that most of
the educated Indians were Christians and they were under the thumb of the white
clergymen, who, in turn, were subject to the Government.
Farewell Party - Working Committee
Gandhiji opposed that bill as it would take away the rights of all the other
Indians who stayed there, but he was confused as he did not know what to do. One of
the guests in the party suggested that if Gandhiji could stay back in Natal, it could be
of great help for them to prevent passing the bill. Gandhiji assured his stay if they
could generate some fund as they had to send telegrams, print pamphlets, do some
touring, meeting with other attorneys. He also asked them the need for some law
books to study as he was ignorant of the local laws and for some men to help him with
these works. Everyone at the party agreed with this decision and gradually the
farewell party turned into a working committee.

Opposition to the Franchise Bill

In the year 1893, Sheth Haji Muhammad Haji Dada was regarded as the foremost
leader of the Indian community in Natal, but financially Abdullah Sheth was the chief
among them. Many people were enrolled as volunteers, like the Natal-born Indians,
who were mostly Christians, then Mr. Paul, the Durban Court Interpreter and Mr.
Subhan Godfrey, Headmaster of a mission school, were responsible for bringing
together at the meeting a good number of Christian youths. Many other Indian
communities who forgot about their religious norms and community status, also
enrolled as volunteers as they wanted to serve their motherland. 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 were of
course there and among the clerks were Messrs. Manekji, Joshi, Narsinhram and
others, employees of Dada Abdulla & Co. and other big firms.
Drafting the Petition
The Indians did not want the bill to be passed, so Gandhiji explained the situation to
the gathering. They first sent a telegram to the Speaker of the Assembly, requesting
him to postpone the further discussion of the bill, then a similar telegram was sent to
the Premier, Sir John Robinson and another to Mr. Escombe, a friend of Sheth
Abdullah. Everyone were happy that the Speaker readily agreed and postponed the
discussions for two days. The petition which was to be presented to the Legislative
Assembly was drawn and taking signature and other literary works had to be
completed by night. So the volunteers with the knowledge of English and others
stayed up the whole night. The principle copy was written by Mr. Arthur, an old man
who was known for his calligraphy, and the other copies were written by the
volunteers. Five copies were made and the merchants used their carriages to get the
signature of the people and this was done by the night. The petition was published in
the newspaper and it received favourable comments. This created an impression in the
Assembly and the supporters of the bill offered a defence, a lame one, in reply to the
arguments given in the petition. However, the bill was passed but the agitation had
infused new life into the community and had brought conviction that the community
was one and indivisible and it was as much their duty to fight for its political rights as
for its trading rights.
Ten Thousand Signatures
At that time Lord Ripon was the Secretary of the State for the colonies. Gandhiji
decided to submit him a monster petition but it was not an easy task. Volunteers were
enlisted, and all did their due share of the work. He had to read all the literature
available on the subject, then he argued that the Indians had the right to the franchise
in Natal, as they had a type of franchise in India. Around ten thousand signatures were
received but it was difficult to obtain them. The villages were scattered at long
distances and the expenses made by Sheth Dawud Muhammad, Rustomji, Adamji
Miyakhan and Amod Jiva were increasing but still, they managed to bring as many
signatures as they could. Even Dada Abdulla’s house became a caravanserai and a
public office at once. The petition was at last submitted and a thousand copies were
printed for circulation and distribution. Many copies were sent to the publicists and
newspapers, The Times of India and The London Times.
Request of the Indian Friends
Gandhiji was preparing to leave Natal but his Indian friends were not letting him go
as they wanted him to stay there. He readily agreed with this but didn’t want to stay
there at public expense. So he decided to set up an independent household which
should be good and has to be situated in a good locality. It was difficult to run the
household as he only earned £300 a year. The people of the community were telling
him to take the fees for the public work.
Law Society Opposing Gandhiji’s Application
The symbol of a court of justice is a pair of scales held evenly by an impartial and blind
but sagacious woman. But the Law Society of Natal set out to persuade the Supreme
Court to act in contravention of this principle and to belittle its symbol. Gandhiji
applied for an application to get enrolled as an advocate in the Supreme Court. He
held a certificate of admission from the Bombay High court (It was an English
certificate). But he had to attach two certificates of character to the application for
admission, so with the help of Sheth Abdullah, he could receive these certificates from
two well-known European merchants. The application was to be presented through a
member of the Bar and as the rule, the Attorney General presented such applications
without any fees. Mr. Escombe, who was the legal advisor to Dada Abdullah &Co.,
was the Attorney General. So he presented the application to him. But the Law Society
sent him a notice, opposing his application for admission. One of the objections was
that the original English certificate was not attached to the application, but the main
objection was that when the regulations regarding admission of advocates were made,
the possibility of a coloured man applying could not have been contemplated. If
coloured people were admitted then they could outnumber the Europeans.
Objections by the Law Society
The Law Society sent a distinguished lawyer to support their opposition since he was
related to Dada Abdullah & Co., he sent Gandhiji a word through Sheth Abdullah to
talk to him. The lawyer was not against Gandhiji but was suspicious as he did not give
the original English certificate for the application. The certificate of character, which
Gandhiji got from the European merchants didn’t have any value. He said that if
Gandhiji had a genuine affidavit then this would have not happened. Gandhiji did not
like the way he talked to him about his antecedents but he thought that if he gave Sheth
Abdullah’s certificate, his application would have been rejected. He immediately
prepared Sheth Abdulla’s affidavit and duly submitted it to the counsel for the Law
Society. They tried to oppose his application before the Supreme Court but the
opposition was ruled out.
Conclusion
The Chief Justice stated that the Law Society did not have the authority to look into
those matters. If Gandhiji has made any false affidavit then he would have been
prosecuted, if proved guilty. Thus they approved Gandhiji’s application but when he
was going to take the oath, the Chief Justice asked him to remove his turban. Gandhiji
did not want to do that but he had to. All his Indian friends including Sheth Abdullah
did not like his submission as they felt that Gandhiji should have stood by his right to
wear the turban. Gandhiji pacified his friends with these arguments but no one was
completely satisfied. This truth made Gandhiji appreciate the beauty of compromise
and as an essential part of Satyagraha.

6. REMINISCENCES OF BAR, CLIENTS TURNED CO- WORKERS AND HOW A

CLIENT WAS SAVED

Introduction
Gandhiji herein describes some narratives of the incidents that took place during his
stay in South Africa. He narrates how he has always practiced truth and never got
influenced by people who thought lawyer’s profession is a liar’s profession. He further
explains how he never encouraged any new client to bring false cases to him. His
practice of truth enhanced his reputation among others in the profession and despite
the colour disparities he got cases with affection.
Practice of Truth
In his reminiscences of his days in the bar, Gandhiji has always followed the path of
truth and has never taken up any false cases while practicing law despite knowing the
fact that he could make more money by taking up false cases. He never demanded
anything more than his usual fees. He always knew his opponents had tutored their
witnesses to lie but he never asked his client or his witnesses to do the same. He only
wished to win when he felt his client’s case had been right.
Case of Severe Trial
The case was brought by one of Gandhiji’s best clients. It was a case of highly
complicated accounts and had been a prolonged one. It had been heard in parts before
several courts. Eventually the book-keeping portion of it was entrusted by the court to
the arbitration of some qualified accountants. The award was completely in favour of
Gandhiji’s client, but the arbitrators had inadvertently committed an error in
calculation which, however small, was serious. The opponents had opposed the award
on other grounds.

Gandhiji’s Initiative
Gandhi served as a junior counsel for the client and as the error was brought to the
notice of the senior counsel, he expressed his view that no counsel was bound to admit
anything that went against his client’s interest. But Gandhiji asked his senior counsel
to admit the mistake that has been committed. The senior counsel proclaimed that if
the client admitted the error, then he would lose the whole award and if the case was
sent for a fresh hearing then it would bring huge expenses to him. Despite this Gandhi
felt that it would be better if the client admitted the error that has been made so as to
not bring any grief to himself later. With this discussion, the senior counsel left the case
to Gandhiji and with his client’s permission, he took up the case and admitted the error
in the court.
Gandhiji’s Sharp Practice
After taking up the case, Gandhi felt that he was not capable of providing complete
justice to the same, but then he was aware of the soundness of his advice and decided
to move forward. He appeared before the Bench with fear and trembles. As soon as he
referred to the error in the accounts, one of the judges inquired as to whether it was a
sharp practice. As Gandhiji had heard of sharp practice, he boiled within as it was
intolerable for him to be accused of the same. ‘With a judge prejudiced from the start
like this, there is little chance of success in this difficult case,’ he said to himself in his
mind. But then, he rephrased his thoughts and said, I am surprised that your Lordship
should suspect sharp practice without hearing me out. The judge then said, it wasn’t a
charge but a mere suggestion. Gandhiji added “The suggestion here seems to me to
amount to a charge. I would ask your Lordship to hear me out and then arraign me if
there is any occasion for it”.
The Award, Not Cancelled
Gandhi had enough material in support of his explanation and with the judge having
raised such a question, he was able to rivet the court’s attention on his argument right
from the start. He felt much encouraged and took the opportunity to enter a detailed
explanation. The Court gave him a patient hearing, and he was able to convince the
judges that the discrepancy was entirely due to inadvertence. They therefore did not
intend to cancel the whole award, which had involved considerable labour. The
opposing counsel seemed to feel secure in the belief that not much argument would be
needed after the error had been admitted.
A Case in Johannesburg
On one occasion, while Gandhi was in Johannesburg, a false case was brought to him
by his client. He felt deceived as the client broke down in the witness box. Without any
further argument, he asked the magistrate to dismiss the case. With this act of Gandhiji,
the opposing counsel was left amazed and the magistrate was pleased. He further
reprimanded the client for bringing a false case to him. And when he confronted him,
he accepted his mistake. Gandhiji assumed and believed that his client was not angry
with him for having asked the magistrate to dismiss the case. This case did not affect
Gandhiji as a lawyer, instead it made his work easier as his practice for truth gained
him recognition amongst the members of same profession. Also, due to the same
reason he was able attain affection from people despite his colour difference.
A Smuggling Case
Parsi Rustomji, Gandhiji’s acquaintance, was his co-worker and client. He had
complete faith in Gandhiji and so much trust he would even take the latter’s advice for
his domestic matters. Though his friend shared every matter with Gandhiji, kept an
affair hidden from him. He was a large importer of goods from Bombay and Calcutta,
and not infrequently he resorted to smuggling. But as he was on the best terms with
customs officials, no one was inclined to suspect him. One day, Parsi Rustomji was
caught red handed by the customs officials for smuggling and he confessed everything
in front of Gandhiji. He apologized for having deceived him, and asked Gandhiji to
save him by any means. Gandhiji proposed that only confession might prove helpful.
Rustomji’s Pledge
Rustomji and Gandhiji consulted the counsel and having known Gandhiji for quite
some time, Rustomji preferred to accept whatever he said. They concluded that the
matter did not need to be brought to the court and met the Customs Officer who would
be guided by the Attorney General. Gandhi told Rustomji that he was ready to confront
both of them and asked to pay all the penalties and fines that would be imposed
thereafter and also to resolve that he would never smuggle again. Rustomji was a brave
man but when his name and fame were at stake, his courage failed him for the moment.
But then, he was aware of the fact that he was not left with any other option than to
follow whatever Gandhiji suggested. He said that he had surrendered himself into
Gandhiji’s hands and would do everything as and how he suggested.
The Response of the Customs Officer
Gandhiji 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 told Gandhiji that he was bound by his
duties and would act according to the orders provided by the Attorney General.
Gandhi, later, met the Attorney General and explained everything. The Attorney
General was convinced that Gandhiji did not hide anything from him just to save his
client.
Conclusion
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 wrote 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.

7. THE TRIALS OF GANDHIJI IN 1907, 1908 AND 1913

Introduction
Through the years 1907 to 1913, Gandhiji was tried thrice in the British Criminal Courts
in South Africa. During these trials there are many aspects of Gandhiji’s personality
that become increasingly clear. His sense of justice and his moral strength are
particularly highlighted.
The Peace Preservation Ordinance
In the year 1903, the British government had put in place the Peace Preservation
Ordinance, the purpose of which, was to ensure that people who violate rules and do
not abide by them did not enter the British territory of Transvaal. However, this
ordinance was being used for the sole purpose of preventing the re-entry of Indians
who had left Transvaal for Natal, the Cape Colony and India, when the war broke out.
Deputation Committees
In an attempt to reverse this wrong, a deputation consisting of Messrs. Abdul Gani
(Chairman of the British Indian Association), Haji Habib (Secretary of the Pretoria
Committee), E.S. Coovadia, P. Moonsamy Moonlight, Ayub Hajee Beg Mahomed and
Gandhiji, had been created to make representations with regard to the repeal of the
Peace Preservation Ordinance to Lord Selborne, High Commissioner of Britain in
South Africa. After the failure of this deputation, a group of Indians led by Gandhiji
had organized an agitation in England. This group had managed to gain the sympathy
of eminent Englishmen. A committee of such Englishmen and Gandhiji, which was
presided over by Lord Ampthill with Sir M.M. Bhownaggree as Executive Chairman
and Mr. Ritch as Secretary, was formed to wait on the Earl of Elgin, the colonial
secretary of the time.
Gandhiji’s Efforts
Gandhiji’s efforts achieved only the temporary hanging up of the Peace Preservation
Ordinance till the Transvaal Constitutional Government transformed it into a law.
Gandhiji gathered meeting with around 3000 British Indians against the Royal Assent
at the Empire Theatre, Johannesburg. The Royal Assent to the Immigration Act was
announced on 26th December 1907 and those who did not have the registration
certificate were asked to leave the colony of Transvaal within a time limit. Gandhiji
was arrested on the ground of not possessing the registration certificate with other 25
members during the week of Christmas in the year 1907.
Gandhiji’s in the British Criminal Court in 1907
When he appeared at the court, Gandhiji was asked by the Superintendent, whether
he possessed the registration certificates under Law 2 of 1907, to which Gandhiji
replied that he did not. Mr. D G Shurman was the prosecutor of the case and
Superintendent Vernon gave evidence to the arrest. Gandhiji pleaded guilty and went
to the witness box to give a brief explanation as to why he did not submit to the law.
The Magistrate, Mr. Jordan, however, had no desire to listen to any “political
speeches”, told Gandhiji that a law was disobeyed and he must be the administrator
of the law. He stated that Gandhiji had defied the law, the court had no reason to grant
him an indulgence even for five minutes. He ordered that Gandhiji must leave the
country within 48 hours.
In the British Criminal Court in 1908
On January 11th of 1909, Gandhiji was called to the court again for having not obeyed
the court order to leave the colony within 48 hours. He requested leave to prepare a
short statement after which he stated that there should be a distinction between his
case and his compatriots, who had been imprisoned for three months with hard labour
and fine. And in lieu of payment they had been further imprisoned for another three
months with hard labour. Gandhiji stated that if they deserved this severe punishment,
he would deserve more penalty and hard labour than them. The Magistrate refused
this request saying, his only offence was nothing more than contempt of the court, by
disobeying the order of 28th December1907. He then pronounced imprisonment for
two months without hard labour. Gandhiji was then removed from the courts in
custody.
£3 Tax
A deputation to India, led by Mr. Polak requested to repeal the £3 tax. This led to an
agitation organized both in England and in India between 1910 and 1912 which gained
the attention of the authorities. In the meantime, Mr. Gokhale visited South Africa to
make representations to the Union Ministers on the repeal of the tax. Later, the Union
Parliament introduced a provision in which only women were exempted from its
operation. Then Gandhiji led the movement by which he advised Indians to suspend
their work till the repeal of the tax. The Indians thus began their march into Transvaal,
allowing themselves to be freely arrested by the police. In an attempt to discourage the
Indians participating in these protests, the government proceeded to issue an arrest
warrant against Gandhiji.
Trial in 1913
On November 11th, 1913, Gandhiji was charged on inducing the immigrants to leave
the province. The case was taken for hearing before the Magistrate Mr. J.W. Cross of
Dundee. The advocate, Mr. J. W. Godfrey, appeared for Gandhiji. As Gandhiji pleaded
guilty once again, the prosecutor had to read the section and leave the matters in the
hands of the magistrate. Gandhiji was granted permission to speak and he stated that
as a former resident of Natal and a current member of the profession, he felt the reason
for which he had defied the law was a noble one. He stated that he had nothing against
the employers and truly regretted the losses they faced. However, it was of utmost
importance that the taxes had to be repealed. While he understood the suffering faced
by the immigrants and their families, he firmly believed that he had done nothing
outside the principles and philosophy of his profession. He had merely advised his
fellow countrymen that they should suspend their work till the taxes would be
repealed. He also believed that it was impossible to win their reimbursement without
suffering.
Sentence on 3 Counts
After Gandhiji had spoken, the Resident Magistrate, Mr. J. W. Cross of Dundee, passed
his judgement. He had stated that it was difficult to pass a sentence on the conduct of
a gentleman such as Gandhiji, who had already pleaded guilty. He passed the
sentences on 3 counts. Count 1: £20 or three months imprisonment with hard labour;
Count 2: £ 20- or three-months imprisonment with hard labour to take effect upon the
expiration of the sentence in respect to Count 1; Count 3: £20-, or three-months
imprisonment with hard labour, this to take effect upon the expiration of the sentence
imposed in Count 2.
Conclusion
Gandhiji’s trials were the indications that he was a man of strong moral values.
Gandhiji was also a man of persistence and fearlessness as he had defied the orders of
the government in order to fight for the noble cause. Gandhiji was truly a gentleman
as he had demanded more punishment than his compatriots in the court. He was well-
determined to raise voice for the downtrodden people. He was of the view that people
had to suffer in order to prosper.

8. THE GREAT TRAIL

Introduction
Gandhiji was arrested at Satyagraha Ashram, Sabarmathi, Ahmedabad on Friday in
1922 for certain articles published in his Young India. Gandhiji and Shri. Shankar lal
Banker, the publishers were placed before Mr. brown, Assistant Magistrate. Gandhiji
published articles entitled “Disaffection a virtue”,” Tampering with loyality”, “The
Puzzle and Its solution” and “Shaking the Minds”.
B C Kennedy’s Letter
On 22nd April, 1919, BC Kennedy, the then district Judge of Ahmedabad wrote a
private official missive to the registrar of the Bombay High Court, informing him that
two advocates Kalidas J. Jhaveri and Jivanlal V. Desai had signed a pledge and as per
him such an action was not keeping with their responsibilities towards the Court. On
12'h July, 1919, the Bombay High Court issued a notice to the advocates and gave
Jivanlal V. Desai a copy of the letter of which he gave a copy to the other respondent
Kalidas J. Jhaveri. Mahatma Gandhi wrote that the echo of the same O'Dwyerean spirit
was being heard near Bombay, alluding to the fact that it was the Bombay HC that
had issued a notice to the 2 counsels for having signed the Satyagraha Pledge against
the Rowlatt Act
The Comment of Advocate General
Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Desai appeared in person. The Advocate General, in opening the
case said that the proceeding were in contempt against Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Desai.
Later on registrar said to Mr. Gandhi that the chief Justice was not satisfied with the
explanation and asked him to write an apology which must be published in the next
issue of Young India.
Mr. Gandhi’s Statement
Mr. Gandhi stated that he was unable to publish the suggested apology and that he
considered the publishing of the document, a public duty when there was great
tension and even the judiciary was affected by the popular prejudice. He also stated
that he had no desire to prejudge the issue. He further said that he had the honour of
journalism in his mind while publishing the letter. Additionally he feels no remorse
to offer apology for his actions. Ile also tells that he shall suffer the punishment is that
explanation was not satisfactory in the eyes of the Lords. He tells that he doesn't
believe he has committed a legal or moral failure by publishing the letter and thereby
commenting on it. Ile again brings to the notice of the Court that he believes the Court
wants a genuine apology but since the regret wouldn't be sincere he doesn't apologize.
Further he says that he shall gladly accept the punishment that the Honourable Court
imposes on him and also states that Mr. Desai published the letter only on the request
and advice by Mahatma Gandhi.
Mr. Desai’s Statement
Mr. Desai also decided to abide by the stance which the editor of the Young India
newspaper took and to blissfully accept any penalty given by the Honourable Court
of law.
Justice Martin
Gandhiji was not ready to back down from his decisions. Mr. Martin reminded him
that he could argue the case from legal stand point but Mr. Gandhi repeated that he
would be content to the ruling of the Court with regard to law. Mr. Gandhi
commented on the District Judge not as a Judge but as an individual. Mr. Martin keeps
questioning Mr. Gandhi but Mr. Gandhi tells that he agrees to the contempt, but as an
individual with due respect to the Honourable Court of Law.
Sub Judice
Justice Martin observed that according to general principles of law applied in this case,
there is no doubt. He tells that generally it is not permissible to publish comments on
pending proceedings without first obtaining the leave of the Court. The common
fairness could be frustrated if newspapers were free to comment on the ongoing
proceedings. It's not about whom the newspaper favours but more importantly it is
about interfering with the Courts duty on decision making regarding the case.
Law as to Contempt
After citing numerous English authorities with respect to contempt of Court, His
Lordship proceeds to say there would be many evils arising if there was freedom for
the newspaper to publish charges against a person before a fair trial was conducted.
Again The Lordship cites a case Reg VS Gray, 1900, in which a newspaper commented
on the pending murder case and later on expressed its deepest regret to the Court. The
Court said that the liberty of an individual, when he was suspected of a crime and
even more when charged with crime must be protected and the Court has to prevent
the publication of articles which are likely to cause prejudice. The Court thus fined
them 1000 pounds.
Application to Present Law
It was contended by the respondent Mr. Gandhi the letter was written by Mr. Kennedy
in his private capacity and not as a District Judge. The Court believes the contention
to be at fault as the letter is an official letter written by the District Judge in the exercise
of his duties as such and submitting the case to the High Court for orders. But even if
it was written by Mr. Kennedy in his private capacity, it was still an important part of
the pending proceedings. Therefore the Lordship fees that the publication of that letter
was a contempt of Court. Comments made in the newspaper, including the headings,
“O'Dwyerism in Ahmedabad", not only comments on pending proceedings but also
rejudge the case and they tend to undermine the decision which the High Court may
decide at the trial. He tells in his opinion that the letter was written in his judicial
capacity and that they constitute a serious contempt of Court.
No Public Duty
The respondents were invited to the hearing to give intelligible explanation to their
conduct but, they did not come forward with that. Mr. Gandhi in his letter explains
that all he did was of a useful public duty. But, common sense says that publishing
that letter was not a public duty
Mr. Hayward’s Judgement
Justice Hayward in a separate but concurrent judgment observes that the respondents
have expressed their inability to apologise formally but, also represented their
readiness to submit to any punishment restored on them. It is again possible that Mr.
Gandhi and Mr. Desai didn’t realize that they were breaking the law in doing so. But,
they have been found to be passive resisters than breakers of law. Mr. Justice Kajiji
concurred that it would be sufficient in his opinion to severely reprimand them and
aware them of the penalties imposable by the right Court.
Contempt of Court
The judgment regarding the case of the editor and publisher of young India had been
pronounced. Even though many people advised Gandhiji to give the tendered
apology, he refused politely because he had to conserve a journalist's independence
and yet respect the law. He felt that he didn't commit any contempt towards the Court.
He was in a dilemma whether to apologies or not. But, if he apologies he wanted it to
be frank and sincere towards the Court. Hence, he didn't give the apology but at the
same time he meant no disrespect to the Chief Justice in doing so. He feels that it was
an instance of civil disobedience. Besides he felt that disobedience to be civil must be
respectful, based upon well understood principles and there must not be any hatred
behind it. Furthermore, he claims that his and Mr. Desai’s disobedience contained all
these elements.
The Great Trial
Following the judgment, Gandhiji was arrested at the Satyagraha ashram Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad on 10th march, 1922 for publishing the letter in Young India. The editor
and the publisher were place before Mr. Brown, Assistant Magistrate. Rao Bahadur
Girdharlal was the Public Prosecutor. Subsequently, SP, Ahmedabad the first witness
produced Bombay Government authority to lodge a complaint for article published
in the same newspaper. After the witness testified, accused Mr. Gandhi and Mr.
Banker declined to cross examine the witnesses. Gandhiji's statement as recorded in
Court was that he was a farmer and weaver by profession residing in Ahmedabad. He
reaffirms that he was the editor of the newspaper and that the articles were written by
him. And the publisher had permitted him to do so. Mr.Shankar Lal Banker landed
proprietor Bombay, second accused stated that at the proper time he would plead
guilty to publishing the article which was complained of. Charges were framed on
three counts under Section 124-A of IPC. Gandhiji was taken to the Sabarmati jail until
the hearing of the case. Their trial was conducted at the Government Circuit House,
Ahmedabad. Three of the articles out of four were found to be at fault and read out
by the registrar. The charge in each case was of attempting to bring into contempt
towards his majesties Government, established by law in British India. It was also
noted by the Court that a spirit of disloyalty to government was found in them. Both
Gandhiji and Mr. Banker plead guilty before the Court. Sir Thomas Strongman wanted
the Judge to proceed with the trial fully as per Section 271 Criminal Procedure Code,
the Judge would make a judgment whether to pursue with trial or to convict the
accused on their pleas.
Court’s Reply
The Judge did not believe that the trial would make much of a difference and decided
to defer from the Advocate Generals view. Thus, he proposed to accept their pleas.
The Judge gave Sir Thomas Strongman to hear from him. Sir Strongman wanted to
present certain things before the Magistrate which were instrumental to the sentence
that was to be given. The first point according to him was that Gandhiji wanted to
spread disaffection towards the government openly. He said that the Articles were
preparing the country for civil disobedience. He brought the instances of Chauri
Chaura where violence occurred and mentioned that what was the use of non-violence
if indeed the articles were trying to bring disaffection towards the government and
encouraging the people to overthrow its regime. He urged the Court to consider
giving the editor a severe sentence. With regard to the second accused he urged the
Court to impose a substantial fine along with a term of imprisonment though his
offence was lesser. The Court then asked Gandhiji to make a statement on his sentence.
Mr. Gandhi’s Oral Statement
Gandhiji in his oral statement made before the Court of law stated that everything
the Advocate General told regarding his intentions were true. And, that he did not
have any intention to conceal it from the Court besides, Gandhiji states that non-
violence is the first article in his faith and also the last article of his creed. He also
cheerfully ready to submit to the highest penalty implicated on him for the crimes of
his, according to the law, but which in his sight is deemed to be the highest duty of a
citizen.
Mr. Gandhi’s Written Statement
Gandhiji in his written statement conveyed the Indian and English population why
he had turned to an uncompromising disaffectionist. He also pleaded guilty to the
charge of promoting disaffection towards the government. He added that his public
life began in South Africa in 1893 where he discovered that he was given no rights as
a man because he was an Indian. But he did not wish the government’s destruction
then. He voluntarily helped and served the British government thinking that in doing
so he might gain a stance of full equality for himself and his countrymen in the empire.
But, the horrors were unleashed upon the Indians beginning with the Rowlatt Act to
the ghastly Massacre of Jallianwala Bagh and other indescribable humiliation. He also
worked for the better satisfaction of the Muslims by fighting in order for the Prime
Minister to redeem his promises through Montagu Chelmsford reforms. Even after all
these, the criminals still served in the service draining India's wealth. The cottage
industries had been ruined by the exploitation of the Britishers, the land drowning in
famines, with poverty looming over their heads, Indians did not have the strength to
fight back in arms, thus Gandhiji resisted in this way.
Gandhiji and Mr. Banker Plead
For, even the laws were created for the exploitation of Indians and the Indians who
were sent to the jail were wholly innocent if not for the crime of loving their country.
Section 124-A under which he had been charged is the Prince of all Sections. He
believed that one should be given full freedom to express their disaffection as long as
he didn’t ignite violence. Additionally, Mr. Banker was charged under the same
Section like many patriots and convicted under it. He pleaded for the highest penalty
for his crimes and Mr. Banker pleaded guilty to the charge.
The Judgement
The Judge exclaims that deciding the sentence of a convict is one of the most toughest
jobs and tells that he has to solely give the sentence on the offence that Mr. Gandhi has
committed and not to look at any of his saintly characteristics. The Judge, following
the precedent of Bal Gangadhar Tilak case sentences Mr. Gandhi for six years in
simple imprisonment. Further, the Judge sentences Mr. Banker for one year of simple
imprisonment and a fine of thousand rupees.
Conclusion
On receiving the sentence passed Gandhiji considers it the proudest privilege and
honour to be associated with Late Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak trials. Hearing the
outcome of the trial, Mr. Gandhi's friends crowded him and fell at his feet while there
accompanied a lot of sobbing from the men and women. All the while Gandhiji stood
there smiling and giving encouragement to who came to him. Mr. Banker also took
this in a light hearted way. After all their friends had taken leave of him, Mr. Gandhi
was escorted to the Sabarmati jail where he was to spend six years in simple
imprisonment, all for trying desperately to get his country out of the clutches of evil
hands with great love towards his nation and fellow countrymen. Thus, the great trial
was finished.

9. THE HALLUCINATION OF LAW COURTS AND COBBLERS V. LAWYERS

Introduction
Babu Motilal Ghosh urged Gandhiji and Maulana Mohomed Ali to invite lawyers to
the Congress fold and become leaders. They were against the lawyers joining the
congress as Gandhiji thought that the practicing lawyers should not be the leaders.
Gandhiji, suggested lawyers and students to render service to the nation even
without leaving their practice and schools. Later on, Gandhiji responded to the
article on the Patrika and clarified the misinterpretation.
Cobblers v. Lawyers
Gandhiji made a comparison between lawyers and cobblers. He stated that a cobbler
would repair the damage of the shoes and mend them. In the same way, it was the
duty of a lawyer to repair the evils in the society and mend it. It created agitation in
the minds of lawyers who mistook the perspectives of Gandhiji in a wrong sense.
Gandhiji revealed that he definitely did not mean to offend anyone and never
considered them to be guilty of caste prejudice.
Lawyers, the Guardians of the Country
Gandhiji described the brilliant and unique services done to the country by the
lawyers such as Pherozeshah Mehta, Ranade, Tyabjee, Telang, Manamohan Ghose,
Krishnaswami Iyer and many others, who stood up to speak and were the voices of
the people and guardian of the country’s liberty. He insisted that a lawyer would
require certain qualities including courage, endurance, fearlessness and above all
self-sacrifice to become a leader. A person with all these qualities would certainly
lead the nation.
The Great Deal of Intolerance
A Great Deal of Intolerance came into the movement when the non-co-operators
insulted those lawyers who had not suspended their practice. Gandhiji said that
intolerance itself was a form of violence and an obstacle to a true democratic spirit. If
a non-co-operator was not humble and contributed little bit of sacrifice, he would be
the greatest danger to the movement. A man would stop growing when self-
satisfaction crept over him and therefore he became unfit for freedom. As a part of
contributing to the Swadeshi, the practicing lawyers could make Khadi fashionable
by wearing them at courts and that the lawyer and his family could spin Khadi
during free time.
Help from Students
There were hundreds of students who were not suspending their classes but they
could definitely bring a change by being the volunteers. Volunteering was a privilege
that the students, who had not been able to withdraw from Government schools,
could not receive privileges from the nation. They did not completely boycott schools
and colleges as they would destroy their prestige and they should do nothing to
restore it back till they are nationalized and answer the requirements of the nation.
Practising Lawyers
Practicing lawyers could have a position in the Congress but they would suspend
practice and continue with public opinion on congress. The Patrika made a
comparison between lawyers and merchants, who had actually renounced trading
with foreign goods, considering the concept of Swaraj. Gandhiji asked the lawyers to
be silent supporters of the resolution and do their work, just like the merchants and
not to completely stop practicing.
A Protest
Gandhiji received a letter from Mr. G.C. Verma, stating that two young men were
leading the Non-Cooperation Movement successfully at Jubbulpo. They were
considered to be very great businessmen and they were identified as the Malguzars
whose trade was to collect Rs.100/- from the tenants, give Rs.55/- to the Government
and keep Rs.45 with themselves. The Congress had not called the land owners to be
the part of movement but these young men were taking an honourable contribution
in the national movement.
Conclusion
Letters continued to pour in Congress offices with regard to practising lawyers
holding offices in Congress Committees. Meanwhile Gandhiji received a question
from a student stating whether the movement would proceed ahead under the
leadership of practicing lawyers. Gandhiji was of the view that he would believe a
brave weaver or cobbler more effectively than a timid and sceptical lawyer. He also
replied that success would not depend upon the leadership of legal acumen,
calculation, diplomacy, hate and unbelief but it would rely on that of bravery,
sacrifice, truth, love and faith.
10. THE JAMNALAL BAJAJ FUND, SATYAGRAHI AND MYSORE LAWYERS
Introduction
In this essay, Gandhiji speaks about the lawyers who have suspended their practice
as a result of the Nagpur resolution. Going forth he also explains the spirit of lawyers
in social work. He also feels that the lawyers have the capability to respond to the
country’s call. Gandhiji also mentions that lawyers should be humble enough to
receive all the support that might be rendered to the country’s cause. He describes the
untoward incidents of satyagrahi lawyers who went to protest against the passing of
the Anarchical and the Revolutionary Crimes Act (XI of 1919), popularly known as
the Rowlatt Act.
Satyagraha Sabha
Many barristers and pleaders joined a movement called the satyagraha sabha and
signed a pledge in which they accepted to practice civil disobedience. Several lawyers
in Mysore took part in Mysore with more zeal and enthusiasm. The lawyers played
prime roles in the satyagraha struggle as a part of their response to the country’s call
and love for the country. As a result, many lawyers were dismissed by the Mysore
Chief Court. Sri H. C. Dasappa was dismissed by the court as he had defied the
magistrate’s order not to address any meetings in a part of Mysore.
The Jamnalal Bajaj Fund
Jamnalal Bajaj (4 November 1889 – 11 February 1942) was an Indian industrialist and
the founder of the Bajaj Group of companies in the year 1926. He was a close associate
of Gandhiji and a devoted disciple of Gandhiji. He personified the principles of his
master throughout his life. Jamnalal was also elected as the treasurer of the Congress
party in 1933. In 1920 he was the chairman of the reception committee for the Nagpur
session and provided a sum of rupees one lakh as a fund to help the young practicing
lawyers who had given up their practice in view of Nagpur resolution in 1920.
The Nagpur Resolution
In December 1920, the Nagpur session of the Congress adopted a resolution for the
Non-Cooperation Movement under the leadership of Gandhiji. At this session, the
Indian National Congress took significant decisions like validating the program of
non-cooperation for having the attainment of self- governance through constitutional
means as its goal. The Congress decided to have the attainment of Swaraj, through
peaceful and legitimate means thus committing itself to an extra-constitutional mass
struggle. In this movement, many practicing lawyers involved themselves by
suspending their practice and showed their enthusiasm towards taking part in a
national awakening movement. The lawyers did not support the idea of returning to
practice when the country was showing a wonderful example of self-sacrifice.
The Spirit and the Flesh
Gandhiji in the book The Law and The Lawyers mentions that “The spirit is willing,
the flesh is weak”. Many practicing lawyers had the zeal to take part in the national
movement but Gandhiji advised them that they cannot lead the movement without
the spirit of willing or sacrifice as this movement demanded complete sacrifice. He
added that the whole cause could be lost, if the top men became weak. The Congress
gave an opportunity not only to the practicing lawyers but also to all the non-co-
operators by making them sign a voluntary pledge with certain restrictions.
The Role of Non-co-operators
According to Gandhiji, the non-co-operators should adhere to certain conditions. They
should use kadhi as a sign of being swadeshi by boycotting of foreign products from
India. The practicing lawyers should be ready to undergo imprisonment and have the
courage to respond to the country’s call. The non-co-operators should not be
appreciative about their achievements and they should give a helping hand towards
the country’s cause. On the whole, Gandhiji asserted that not only the practicing
lawyers but also the others who might be honestly serving the country in various ways
should always be ready to thankfully receive whatever is offered upon the altar of
service to the motherland with a willing heart.
The Satyagrahi Lawyers and the Satyagraha Sabha
The practicing lawyers in the courts of the Ahmedabad District together joined the
movement called the Satyagraha Sabha as a protest against the Rowlatt Act. The
barristers and advocates signed an agreement of willingness to offer civil disobedience
as an initiative. The Bombay High Court issued a notice against them on a reference
from the District Judge as the Judge was unsatisfied with the explanation provided by
them for their conduct. Thus, the barristers and the advocates who joined Gandhiji
and the Satyagraha Sabha were called The Satyagrahi Lawyers. Gandhiji started the
campaign against the Rowlatt Bill and set up The Satyagraha Sabha on 24th February
1919 at Bombay. During this agitation, Gandhiji gave the famous quote “It is my firm
belief that we shall obtain salvation only through suffering and not by reforms
dropping on us from the English they use brute, we soul force”. The movement was
against the rejection of freedom of the press and detention without trial. After the
Jallianwala Bagh massacre on April 13, 1919, the Anti-Rowlatt Satyagarh lost
momentum. Moreover, the violence in Punjab, Gujarat, and Bengal deeply hurt
Gandhiji. Hence, Gandhiji called off the movement.
The Judgement of the High Court
The Bombay high court issued a notice against the barristers and the pleaders, who
involved in the movement. The notice came up for hearing before the Hon’ble chief
justice Kajiji. The high court delivered its judgement on 15-10-1919. The high court
stated that there was no necessity to take any disciplinary action against the
respondents under any circumstance, but only a mere warning would be enough. The
judgment given by the Bombay high court in the case of the Satyagrahi lawyers was
highly unacceptable to Gandhiji as the lawyers did not ask for mercy but sought a
clear decision.
Mysore Lawyers
Numerous Mysore lawyers were disbarred by the Mysore Chief Court and the last
victim was Sri H.C.Dasappa, the President of the Mysore Congress, who was one of
the most respected Mysorean and a practitioner who had twenty years of experience.
He was accused of a defect of character unfitting him to be an advocate of the high
court and for disobeying the District magistrate’s order of not addressing any
meetings in certain areas. He was also charged of advising his congress men not to
participate in an enquiry before the Judge of the Mysore court. Gandhiji was
disappointed when he read the report about the order of the Chief Judge, who had
disbarred Shri Dasappa, in ‘The Hindu’.
Conclusion
It is clear that Gandhiji lights a spark in the hearts of the lawyers to take part in the
national movement in which the lawyers agreed even to go to prison. In the book, he
mentions that the young practicing lawyers should be ready to responsibly accept the
country’s call and work for the freedom of the nation from the British rule. This
instigated many practicing lawyers to suspend their practice to support the Nagpur
resolution. Jamnalal Bajaj provided a fund of rupees one lakh to help the lawyers who
had involved in the movement. Sri H.C. Dasappa’s case was a travesty of justice
according to Gandhiji because Dasappa did not cooperate with the inquiry conducted
by the Justice Nageswara Iyer for his involvement in the civil disobedience act.
According to Gandhiji Mysore case was worse than the Punjab case which led to a lot
of chaos.
11. THE CASES OF SHRI DASAPPA, BABU KALINATH ROY AND LALA
RADHA KRISHNA
Introduction
A short note regarding the case is necessary to comprehend Gandhiji’s comments and
stance in the matter of the Mysore Chief Judge coordinating Shri H. C. Dasappa to be
struck off the moves of the High Court. There were two charges against Shri Dasappa.
The first was that he had disregarded the order of the Kolar District Magistrate which
(30) forbade him from addressing the meetings in a specific territory. The other was
the fact that as the President of the Mysore Congress, Dasappa had allegedly urged
the members of the Congress not to participate in an inquiry being conducted by the
Government. The inquiry was to be trusted to a Mysore judge but on Gandhiji’s advice
the Congress decided not to participate as it was not of an unprejudiced and free
character. It was seen by the Chief Justice as “a defect of character unfitting him to be
an advocate of the High Court” on Shri Dasappa.
Prosecution
When asked by the High Court to explain his behaviour, he questioned the validity of
the procedure yet gave his statement. Through his statement he made it clear that after
attempts to make the inquiry more agreeable to both parties had failed, the Congress,
on the advice of Gandhiji, decided not to participate since it was a departmental
inquiry and not open to the public and there was no legal obligation to provide
evidence. These words incited the anger of the Chief Justice, who said that no decent-
minded man would commit such an act. He claimed that Shri Dasappa by his actions
had showed that he was not capable of this fairness. He added that it was saddening
that the other lawyers of the High Court should have to associate themselves with Shri
Dasappa who had, according to the judge, lowered his moral standards and was no
longer fit to be a lawyer of the High Court.
Babu Kalinath Roy
The Young India Syndicate consisted largely of Satyagrahis and since its editor, Mr
Horniman was deported, they had asked Gandhiji to supervise the editing. He asked
for the post to ensure whether the articles were according to the principles of
Satyagraha. Gandhiji wished that he would take the responsibility of any articles
written on the case of Babu Kalinath Roy, who was previously the editor for the
Tribune. Gandhiji stated that because of his silence with regard to the Punjab
disturbances he had been misunderstood by many. Gandhiji drew a distinction with
regard to Babu Kalinath’s case stating that it was an occurrence of cruel injustice. As
Gandhiji looked into the judgment made regarding this case he had assumed that
there would be a few isolated writings which had been used against Babu Kalinath.
However, as he studied the situation, he realized that what had occurred was a type
of special pleading in order to justify the heavy penalty which was levied. After
studying the sections of the Tribune which were referenced in the judgment, Gandhiji
understood it was purely a case of suspicion clouding the judgment of the British court
and that the prevailing martial law led to the warped nature of the judgment. He said
that after having studied the articles from the Tribune from the date of 30th March of
the previous year, he could confirm that the underlying theme was to continue non-
violent struggle against the Rowlatt Act and it did not contain any form of ill feeling
towards the British.
Unjust and Unwarranted
According to the test set by the Special Tribunal for themselves, they were to consider
whether the writings were merely a discussion of dissatisfaction they had since people
were allowed to express their concerns. The fault arises when the writings are
specifically directed to inciting violence or disaffection towards the British
government. In the articles cited by the court for which he was charged, it would be
apparent that Babu Kalinath had made statements which he believed to be no more
than facts. With regard to the Punjab tragedies he stated that the actions were “unjust
and unwarranted” and the government “exposed itself to the severest criticisms at the
bar of public opinion”.
Three Articles
The article “Delhi Martyrs” had reference to the prayers at the Jumma Masjid and
Memorial Fund. The comment, “those who had been shot down at Delhi, were dealt
without sufficient cause” did not contain any words of sedition. The other two articles
used against him were “Delhi Tragedy& and “Blazing Indiscretion” which were
published on 9th and 10th April respectively in which the first described the tragedy
of 30th March and requested the government to conduct an inquiry regarding the
same. The article titled “Blazing Indiscretion” was written regarding the speech made
by Sir Michael O’ Dwyer to the Punjab Legislative Council which, according to
Gandhiji, contained more than a single ‘blazing indiscretion’.
Babu Kalinath Roy, Innocent
Gandhiji stated that he had no desire to prove O’Dwyer’s guilt but to prove Babu
Kalinath’s innocence and he had been wrongly convicted by the British government.
He pleaded for the fervent prayers of Indians as well as Englishmen for the release of
Babu Kalinath Roy. He also commented on the unfair usage of the Martial Law
Tribunal which was to be used only in the cases of people being caught in committing
the acts of rebellion or crimes. Gandhiji was of the view that Babu Kalinath Roy’s case
should not be charged under the Martial Law Tribunal. He stated that the articles, for
which he was charged, would be immediately considered by the government. Thus,
he should not be charged forsedition but should be released.
Lala Radha Krishna’s Case
After having received the papers of Lala Radha Krishna, the editor of Pratab, Gandhiji
concluded that the case was just as strong and it was a situation of total disregard and
overriding justice. It was worse than the situation of Babu Kalinath Roy as there were
no startling headlines and the sentence was not under the Indian Penal Code but
under a rule which was created as a war measure under the Defence of India Act.
(1) Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by signs, or by visible
representations, or otherwise publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or
report—
a) which is false and which he has no reasonable ground to believe to be true,
with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public or to any
section of the public; or
b) with intent to jeopardize, or which is likely to jeopardize, the success of His
Majesty’s forces by land or sea, or the success of the forces of any power in alliance
with His Majesty; or
c) With intent to prejudice, or which is likely to prejudice, His Majesty’s relations
with Foreign Powers; or
 d) With intent to promote, or which is likely to promote, feelings of enmity and
hatred between different classes of His Majesty’s subjects:
shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, or if it is proved that he did so
with intent to assist the Kings enemies, with death, transportation for life or
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years.
(2) No court shall take cognisance of any offence against this rule saved upon
complaint made by order of, or under authority from, the Governor-General in
Council, the Local Government or some officer empowered by the Governor- General
in Council in this behalf.”
Omission of the Italicised Words
Gandhiji stated that the charges contained material inaccuracies. In one citation from
the article, the indictment declared that the accused had written “they (the crowd)
were fired in Delhi without any cause”. However, the actual phrases used were, “they
were, at least from their point of view, fired without any cause”. The omission of the
italicized phrase gave a different meaning to the statement. Similarly, the third count
concluded that “the people threw stones and brickbats at the time when the
authorities had already taken the initiative. In reality, the extract from which this was
derived stated “But it is possible that somebody among this huge crowd might have
thrown stones on the police officers (before they resorted to firing). Even admitting
this to be true, wisdom and prudence of the authorities would demand whether some
other method than firing guns should have been adopted with a view to suppress the
disturbance.”
Court Proceedings
The first statement was: “By the evening of 31st March forty Hindus and Musalmans
had been killed.” Gandhiji had resolved that the deciding factor was the fact of firing
which had not been denied, rather than the exact number of people killed. Other
papers had published similar statements thus the accused had reason to believe that
the statement was true. However, this fact was easily dismissed by the judge, even
though Gandhiji verified that it was relevant and necessary to establish bona fides for
the accused. The second statement made by the accused was: “It cannot be denied that
most who were killed or wounded were innocent.” Lala Radha Krishna mentioned
that this was acknowledged by the police force as well and they thus created a public
fund for the innocent sufferers. The Crown made their judgment based on the opinion
that those, who had been killed, were the ‘members of a violent and dangerous mob’.
However, this was not necessarily true and the Crown made no effort to prove
whether or not those who lost their lives were actually guilty of violence.
Communique
The facts were not proved to be false and there were grounds for believing the
statements made. However, the court judged Lala Radha Krishna guilty of publishing
false statements and stating that the statements planted fear in the hearts of the
citizens. To which, Lala Radha Krishna replied that there were no reported incidents
of citizens being afraid due to what was written. Gandhiji also noted that the judgment
made no note of the fact that Lala Radha Krishna had stated that he corrected his error
regarding the number of the death in the Communique as well as the Civil and
Military Gazette version. Gandhiji mentioned that it was a grave injustice and that he
earnestly prayed for the release of Lala Radha Krishna.
Jagannath’s Case
Jagannath was an unknown public figure who did not involve himself in any public
activities or other illegal activities who ended up getting a life time imprisonment for
no cause. Jagannath participated in social activity and engaged himself closing down
the shops where he had all the notices which could prove that he was present in the
meeting that was held on 5th April. 4th April meeting was focused on the Rowlatt Act
and certain individuals involved themselves in moving against the Act. As a result, a
mass meeting was held on 5th April due to which the court had all the rights to believe
that the notices might have been printed by his agents. The court also said that he
engaged himself in a meeting on 12th and 13th April leading to burning bridges and
cutting telegraph wires in Amritsar.
Alibi
Jagannath submitted an Alibi stating that he left Gujaranwalla on 12th April by the
5pm train to Kathiawad to attend a case there. He also applied for subpoena to
summon witnesses from Khathiawad to show that he was in Dhoraji on 16th April.
He showed the extracts of the railway time table and it would take 44 hours to reach
Dhoraji by the fastest train. He also produced the proceedings of Jetpur court where
he had attended his case, but all his efforts to prove himself free of guilt ended in vain
as his pleas and statements were rejected by the British court.
Conclusion
Yet another case has been put forward of Karamchand, one among nineteen accused,
the student of Dayanand Anglo Vedic college who was given the capital punishment.
The case was about speaking in the meeting of 14th April. Karamchand was accused
of talking about the riots of Lahore where people were being fired upon but he was
stopped by the head Master of the D. B. School. Prosecution witness 27 failed to prove
that he was involved in any unruly act on 14th April. Karamchand produced four
witnesses to prove that he was in his village Udhoki on the 14th April but
Karamchand’s sentence was commuted to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

12. THE CASES OF DR. SATYAPAL, LALA LABHU RAM AND GUJARATIMAL

Introduction
Gandhiji expresses the facts, evidences and his views regarding the cases of Dr
Satyapal, Lala Labhu Ram and Gujaratimal. Gandhiji talks about the justice that was
denied regarding their cases and false evidences that were brought into the trial. He
criticizes the system in which injustice was a systematic process. Isolated cases of
injustice will happen in the best regulated society under a model Government. But
when injustice becomes the order of the day, it is time for honest men not to merely
protest against it but to withdraw their support from a system of Government under
which such organized injustice is possible. Gandhiji’s view on justice is clearly
expressed in his book The Law and The Lawyers.
Conspiracy against Dr Satyapal
Dr Satyapal was a physician and a political leader in Punjab, British India. He was
arrested along with Dr Kitchlew on April 1919, 3 days before Jallianwala Bagh
Massacre. Dr Satyapal had denied a whole string of charges. Dr .Satyapal clearly
shows that the speeches he made were incorrectly reported by the C.I.D officials, and
warned the people against losing their temper. Dr Satyapal was restricted from public
speaking on the 29th March. The Commission had sentenced him to transportation for
life as he was charged for sedition in a speech he had supposedly made. But the fact
is that he had not even attended the meeting of 30th March, nevertheless he was able
to address the meeting in which he was accused of making the sedition.
Reality (Satyapal, signing the bill)
Dr. Satyapal offered military service in 1915 and extended his service as a lieutenant
I.M.S. He worked at Aden where he worked up to the satisfaction of his superior
officers. He volunteered for service in 1918 and mitigated the suffering of his fellow
townsmen during the time of influenza and malaria epidemics. He signed the handbill
convening the meeting that was held on 30th March. He signed the bill on the 28th
March. But he was charged of attending the meeting on 30th March. A platform ticket,
which was carried on by Dr .Satyapal in January and February, was also brought into
the trial.
Gandhiji’s plea for Mr Lala Labhu Ram
Mr Labhu Ram was a civil engineer from a respectable and loyal family residing in
Lahore. Many of his relatives held very responsible positions in the services of the
Government. He finished his studies in Glasgow. He returned from England in 1912.
Then he discharged not only his professional duties to the superiors as State Engineer
in the Poonch State but also materially helped the authorities in recruiting work. He
was not a member of any political society or a Samaj. He did not take part in any kind
of propaganda or hartal. Amongst the several accused, Labhu Ram was one who
pleaded an alibi with considerable distrust. Gandhiji argued whether the court had an
overwhelming and unimpeachable testimony against that of Lala Labhu Ram. As
Labhu Ram pleaded that he had not been present at the Badshahi Mosque meeting,
the court would be bound to accept his evidence and grant him an honourable
discharge.
Arrest of Labhu Ram
Mr. Labhu Ram was arrested on the 20th April, i.e. eight days after the day of the
alleged offence. He was supposed to have been one of the hundred men who were
charged with a simultaneous assault on one of the police officers. He was neither
known to this officer before, nor known to a single prosecution witness earlier. Mr.
Labhu Ram’s sentence of transportation, with forfeiture of property had been
commuted to fourteen years. Gandhiiji argued that Mr. Labhu Ram was not a child
but he was a man of culture and fully aware of his responsibility. If he took part in a
cowardly assault on an inoffensive police officer, he would deserve stern justice and
no mercy. Gandhiji submitted the cases to the Punjab State Government and the
Government of India stating that the appointed Commission in this case had the
power to revise the sentence. The recorded evidence itself showed a patent
miscarriage of justice and the Commission should be bound in honour to discharge
the accused without hiding behind the Commission.
Dresser in Military Conspiracy against Gujaratimal
Gujaratimal was an eighteen-year-old boy, having received no more than middle
school education. At the age of sixteen he got himself appointed as a dresser in the
Military Department. After working for a year in Multan Cantonment, he went to
Egypt and spent one year there on service. He subsequently returned to Punjab taking
leave for one month. He reached Madhranwala, his native village, five miles from
Hafizabad, on 8th April. He remained at his village getting his shop repaired. He was
arrested on 16th April with warrants issued against him for an alleged assault on a
police officer.
Investigation Process
Gujaratimal was convicted of assaulting the principal speaker and one of the
assailants. He was not arrested red-handed, but two days after the date of the alleged
assault. Gujaratimal was sentenced to be hanged. His sentence was subsequently
commuted to transportation along with rigorous imprisonment for seven years. It was
a serious matter to sentence a lad of eighteen years, who had denied his guilt and his
presence at the scene itself. Gandhiji added a summary of the facts supplied by the
father of Gujaratimal, and respectfully submitted that if the facts supplied by the
father were true, he was entitled to complete discharge without further investigation.
The father said that on 23rd of May, that was five weeks after the event, the Deputy
Commissioner of the District ordered all the residents to assemble in one place to be
identified by the prosecution witnesses, Lieutenant Tatam. Gujaratimal was also
among the crowd.
Prosecution Witnesses
None of the prosecution witnesses Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19 gave evidence against
him, they could not identify him, nor could Lieutenant Tatam. If this was true,
Gujaratimal had certainly been wrongly convicted. According to prosecution witness
No. 13, Mr. Tatam identified Karam Singh, Jiwan Kishen, Mulchand and even pointed
at Gujaratimal thinking that he was also one of the assailants. But when the Deputy
Commissioner said that Gujaratimal was a Tehsildar, Mr. Tatam said that the man he
remembered was fatter than him. The father adds that the prosecution witness No. 3
said that Gujaratimal delivered an oration at the station, whereas prosecution witness
No. 16 said that it was Gian Singh who delivered the oration. This discrepancy can be
proved from the recorded evidence. Again, the father said that the prosecution
witness No. 15 who could not identify Gujaratimal on the 3rd of May said at the trial
that Gujaratimal had carried a flag.
Conclusion
Gujaratimal’s father submitted several petitions to the authorities. He was very sad
that his son was wrongly accused. The Viceroy was very pleased to give careful
attention to the cases which had been brought before the Government of India and the
orders were asked with utmost care and justice. Hence, Gandhiji stated that special
consideration should be given to the statements made by Gujaratimal’s father in his
letter. If the Viceroy considered the statements to be worthless, he should reveal the
ground of reason for his decision.

13. MORE PUNJAB TRAGEDIES

Introduction
This essay deals with Punjab tragedies which made Gandhiji call Punjab “The Land
of Sorrow” because of a series of unbelievable cases on one side and the noticeable
disparity of the Punjab Government on the other side. Pronouncing sentences on
innocent people without even admitting the error became the prime role of the
Government. The common men were not comfortable with the policies of the
Government and so they started either protesting against the Government or trying
to prove their innocence under the aegis of justice of the Government.
Mr. Labh Singh
Mr. Labh Singh M.A., LL.B., finished his graduation from Cambridge University. He
was accused of his memorable contribution against the Rowlatt Act and charged
under the section 121, I.P.C. He was marked as accused 4 for his active participation
in the inception of the agitation against the Rowlatt Act and his presence in the
meetings on 12th and 13th April 1919 where he opposed the Comission of Acts of
Violence. He was also found guilty of appearing in several places with the mob on
14th. According to Labh Singh he sensed a great and serious miscarriage of justice. He
admitted that he signed the notice of the meeting for 5th April but he neither convened
nor addressed a public meeting at Gujaranwalla or anywhere within 12 to 15 months
preceding the meeting on 14th April.
Mr. Labh Singh, Innocent
In reply to the Hon. Pandit Malaviyaji’s resolution for the appointment of the
commission, Sir Edward Maclagan, the Administrator in British India, stated that Mr
Labh Singh and the co-prisoners were clearly guilty but they were purely innocent in
the hearts of the public as the evidences against them were immaterial. Gandhiji
blamed the Government of India and the Punjab Government as they had found hard
to withstand public opinions unanimously based on facts. Mr. Labh Singh did not ask
for mercy rather he pleaded for justice. Gandhiji was worried about the spirit of justice
which was very slow because some hesitation prevailed in the headquarters to
provide real justice. Even a certain amount of findings was not done by the judges but
they went with unanimous conclusions on their own. According to Gandhiji, Mr. Labh
Singh was not a man of straw and requested every lover of India and every public
man to carefully study these documents of Mr. Labh Singh together with judgment in
the case. Thus Gandhi was very particular that justice for the individual should be
viewed correctly without considering the unanimous decisions taken by the judges.
More Punjab Tragedies
In this context, Gandhiji presents two more cases pertaining to Mr. Gurudayal Singh
and Dr. Mahomed Bashir. Punjab was witnessing a series of cases of innocent people
and they were charged of various allegations without any specific evidences. Mr.
Gurudayal Singh was from the Sikh culture and Dr. Mahomed Bashir was a
Mohammedan doctor. Mr. Gurudayal Singh’s brother sent Gandhiji a long letter
requesting him to publish the key facts that were present in the petition but Gandhiji
backed from publishing them because he did not want to tire the readers. Some key
points in the petition were.
 Mr. Gurudayal Singh was charged of attending the meeting on 6th April and
breaking the glass panes of the Tahsil windows
 In fact, he was confined to bed because of serious sickness with appendicitis on
14th and 15th April.
 The local sub-assistant surgeon (Government Employee) attended on Mr.
Gurudayal Singh and gave the prescription.
 Due to sickness, Mr. Gurudayal was not able to join the so-called unruly mob
in breaking the glass panes of the Tahsil windows.
 Mr. Gurudayal Singh was not informed of the names of such persons and he
later knew them by seeing them in the court.
 Finally, Mr. Gurudayal came to know about the charge against him only
through the mouth of the prosecution witnesses.
Later Gandhi stated that if these statements were correct, it would be very much
evident to ensure Mr.Gurudayal Singh’s discharge. Dr. Bashir’s was another such
case. The petition, produced by Dr. Bashir and his wife, show that Dr Bashir was
sentenced to death by the court with completely warped judgement.
Mayadevi’s Petition
Mayadevi, 16 year old wife of Kesar Mal submitted a petition to release her young
husband who was 21years old. Gandhiji was very much angry with unfair handiwork
of draft by an advocate and overlaid adjectives and narratives. Mayadevi did not
reveal any information about the draftsman of the petition. Gandhiji was of the view
that practiced draftsman should be aware of the consequences on poor people with
violent petitions. He was sure that a bare statement of facts decorated with adjectives
would be more eloquent than a narrative with exuberant language.
The Grounds of Petition
Gandhiji shares his experience as a draftsman under Mr. Gokhale, “if I wanted to be
heard I must be brief, I must write to the point and stick to the facts and never go
beyond the cause”. Coming back to the young Kesar Mal’s case, Gandhiji was very
anxious that his case might not be taken because of poor draftsman ship. Some of the
key points that can be recollected from the petition are.
 The prosecution evidence is inconsistent itself.
 Lieut Tatam did not identify Kesar Mal even as one of the men concerned in
assaulting him.
 An identification parade was held sometime after the occurrence.
 The petition charges the police with having given colour to the proceedings
which they did not deserve.
 Prosecution witnesses against Kesar Mal were either prejudiced or did so
seeking favours.
If these allegations were true, it was clear that Kaser Mal had been wrongly convicted
and he was entitled to be discharged. Later, Sir William Vincent revealed a surprise to
the community with appointing two judges to investigate such cases. Sir William was
very communicative but he failed to consider the pain and suffering of the community
while drafting the plaints.
Conclusion
According to Gandhiji, judgment should give comfort to the men who are innocents
or to the people who believe in their innocence. It is proved by Gandhiji through the
cases of the high-spirited men Mr.Gurudayal Singh and Dr. Mahomed Bashir. The
readers can perceive the spirit of Mayadevi through the petition, produced for her
husband Kesar Mal where a good cause has been spoiled by a bad advocate who fails
to understand the pain and torture undergone by the relatives of the men who were
wrongly convicted in various cases.
14. FINING THE LABOURERS AND PUNJAB TRAGEDIES
Introduction
The Government decided to impose a sum of nine lakh rupees as a fine on the
labourers in relation to the April disturbances. The Ahmedabad mills had to pay a fine
of Rs.176, 000 where recovery should have been made during September 1919, which
falls under the British Police Act. The objective of Gandhiji was to bring to the public
notice the unwise law that allows the Government to take power over the
Constitutional law. Further, the essay also shows the sacrifices and hardships taken
by the people of Amritsar for the Nation. The essay showcases the willpower and
fearless sacrifices made by the people for their nation’s cause.
Gandhiji’s Reaction
Gandhiji expressed his wish to make the people realize how bad and cruel the law is.
The mode of collection of the fine from women and children and the time chosen was
unfortunate. The order was dated 26th September 1919 which was on the same day
the mill owners were asked to pay to the Huzur Deputy Collector of Ahmedabad, on
September 29th before 3:00 pm an amount worth a week’s wage of the labourers. The
labourers were not given a chance to appeal for paying the fine. This kind of degrading
treatment given to the labourers put them in a helpless state. Thus, the British did not
consider the Indians even as human beings.
The Festival Season
A huge sum of Rs.176,000 was collected during the festival season which was common
to both, the Hindus and Mohammedans. Such a step by the Government was heart
breaking for the labourers. In conclusion, the festival season was intentionally chosen
to hurt their feelings. The action taken by the Government not only wounded the
feelings of the labourers but also put them in a state of helplessness. Gandhiji
expressed his disapproval on the involvement of women and children in the payment
of the fine. The mill owners had to recover themselves for the payment out of their
wages immediately which were kept aside to be used during festivities.
The Collector of Ahmedabad
The Collector of Ahmedabad was a man of humanity, who acted with remarkable
coolness during the time of trouble. He fulfilled every need and satisfaction of the
people. Gandhiji praises him but considers him as a slave to the system. As the matter
was put forward to the Governor, Gandhiji expresses his wish to see a change in the
wrong done to the labourers. He asks for a reduction in the payment of the fine, as it
is too much for the labourers. Gandhiji also wishes for the exemption of women and
children from paying the fine.
The Amritsar Appeals
In the chapter ‘The Amritsar Appeals’, a huge disaster had taken place, where twenty-
one citizens of Amritsar were convicted by the Court Martial at Lahore in connection
with the Amritsar riots of April 1919. The Privy Council, on July 24th, 1919 had
granted the leave of appeal to twenty one citizens of Amritsar. The convicts appealed
on the grounds that the Viceroy had no power to issue the Marital Law ordinance and
that the procedure followed by the Summary Court was irregular yet, no action was
taken in favour of them. According to Gandhiji, the judgment was not surprising to
him though Sir Simon was developing his arguments on behalf of the appellants
which led one to expect a favourable verdict. As soon as the news reached Lahore all
preparations to welcome Lala Lajpat Rai were cancelled immediately. The news broke
the hearts of many and they were in deep sorrow. Gandhiji hoped to see an immediate
withdrawal of the death sentence by the Government without any agitation or
petitions.
Martial Law Tribunals
The appellants were highly respected and regarded as responsible citizens who had
never been a part of any revolutionary society. If they had ever committed any crime
at all, they were committed only under the compulsion and provocation of the
moment. Also the public believed that the Martial Law Tribunals were not supported
by any good evidence. Therefore, Gandhiji hoped that the Government would release
the appellants and thus earn itself the goodwill of the people of India. Gandhiji asked
his people not to lose hope and to be prepared for the worst. He threw a spark of hope
to the people by saying that no nation has ever risen without sacrifice.
The Two Considerations
Gandhiji hoped that the Government would cancel the death sentence and if possible,
simultaneously set the appellants free as an act of generosity during the time of
triumph without any need for agitation. According to Gandhiji, there is only one way
to avoid the tragedy which required two considerations that were both equally
important. The first was to restore public confidence and the second, to fulfill the
Royal Proclamation of December 1919 to the letter.
Conclusion
The above essay talks about the serious injustice done to a large number of people. It
further goes on to talk about the horrifying punishments given to the offenders which,
also fell upon many innocent shoulders. In the first half of the essay, it talks about the
evilness of the law. Gandhiji expresses his wish to heave light upon his people about
the dangers of the application of the evil law. He also expresses his surprise to see the
willingness of the mill owners to such a monstrous law. In the latter half, the essay
discusses about the sacrifices made by the Amritsar appellants. Gandhiji expresses his
wish to see the release of the appellants as an act of generosity. In conclusion, the essay
gives an in-depth knowledge about the fearless sacrifices made by the people for the
rise of their nation.

15. PUNJAB SENTENCES AND LAWYER’S DUTY

Introduction
Due to the Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre on the 13th of April in 1919, riots broke out
throughout the country. As a result of these riots, murders occurred for which 5 men
were arrested and were sentenced to death. They were not tried properly as the
Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, had issued Martial Law Ordinances. The Amritsar
Appeals were an attempt to make the Viceroy revoke the ordinances and lessen the
death sentences. The Amritsar Appeals were rejected and the only success gained was
the pardon of three of the men, however the other two were deported, which was still
a disproportionate penalty.
The Report of the Congress Punjab Sub-Committee
Commissioners were appointed by the Sub-Committee to publish a report in which
they mentioned the incompetence of the Viceroy and his “criminal want of
imagination”. After receiving news of the execution of Messrs. Bugga and
Ratanchand, the two men condemned after the riots in Amritsar, Gandhiji was led to
contemplate the futility of their sentence. The cases were carefully analysed by Pandit
Motilal Nehru and it was declared that the men who were executed were guilty of
nothing more than the three who were given a jail sentence. Gandhiji stated that there
had been several who had initially been sentenced to death but their sentences had
been commuted to imprisonment and they had eventually been released. He
pondered on the difference between these cases and wondered if the cause was the
appeal itself. If it were not for the benevolence of learned lawyers, who fought against
perilous chances, the accused would not have been able to escape their premature
deaths.
The Ineptitude of Viceroy Chelmsford
The execution of the sentences against the accused had been drawn out and the
general public believed that somehow victory had been won for the two that had been
condemned. A viceroy with any amount of discernment would be able to foresee the
rude shock which the public would face if the sentence was carried out. However, it
soon became increasingly clear that Lord Chelmsford had no regard whatsoever, for
the vox populi and public sentiment had little standing with him. By the Viceroy’s
estimation, without the sentence, the requirements of justice would not be met.
Gandhiji’s Criticism on Lawyers
Gandhiji stated that even though certain lawyers have contributed much, there was
not much reason for the community of lawyers to take pride in their actions. Gandhiji
explained that there was a prejudice against lawyers as the general public was under
the misconception that all the lawyers were patriotic. A lawyer was expected to
sacrifice his life and happiness for the well-being of his country as a part of his duty,
he would lead a life of self-indulgence in money making. Gandhiji stated that while
giving up their practice as a requisite to participate in the freedom struggle was
debatable, it was absolutely imperative that they should come forth in large numbers
and practice civil disobedience. Gandhiji stated that it would be a disgrace for them to
betray their country for the sake of their sanads. If they should face the removal of their
sanads, they should treat it as if they had been cleansed from dirt and welcome such a
cleansing.
Gandhiji’s Advice to Lawyers’ Duty
Gandhiji claimed that lawyers had specific duties to function outside of their
profession. These were the duties that they owed to the general public by virtue of
being a fellow citizen of the country. Gandhiji lists these duties out as:
● Keeping accounts of public funds – As learned men it was important that lawyers
pay attention to the use of the public funds and minimize the possibility of frauds, etc.
● Explain legal intricacies to the public – It was necessary that lawyers explain to the
people of India what specifically was meant by legislations created by the British
government and what they implied for the daily lives of the common people.
● Enquire into civil disobedience cases which have been arbitrarily dealt with and
bring them to light – It was the duty of the lawyers of India to make inquiries as to the
well-being of his fellow citizens. He must ensure that his compatriots are not unduly
penalized and that civil disobedience cases are not handled with recklessness.
● Be present at places where there is an apprehension of violence – As an individual
capable of diplomacy, lawyers should be present to ensure that violence does not
ensue and to resolve disputes as peacefully as possible.
● Explain to people all the possible cases of arbitrary use of authority – During a
movement such as the civil disobedience, the public practicing such disobedience
should be made aware of their rights and what the government does and does not
have the authority to do. It is important that civilians know the limits of both the
governments and themselves.
● Enquire into injustices being perpetrated at present and point out to the public the
Government’s misdeeds – The lawyers of the society should ensure that all legislations
protect the best interests of the public. The lawyers should communicate to the citizens
if any of their rights are at risk and make certain that action is taken.
● Help in manufacturing Khadi – Assistance was always necessary in the
manufacturing of khadi and to ensure that it was given the required promotion for it
to thrive as an industry.
● Help in the boycott of foreign cloth – By promoting indigenous cloth and assisting
in its manufacture, the lawyers as respectable members of society, assisted in creating
a more independent India.
● Encourage the public and maintain high spirits among citizens – During the struggle
for independence, many of the significant leaders had been imprisoned and people
may have easily lost hope. Gandhiji expressed his desire for the lawyers to ensure that
people did not feel disheartened and that they continued in civil disobedience.
Conclusion
Gandhiji claimed that any person hoping to truly assist the freedom struggle would
be able to find a way by which they might contribute. Gandhiji desired that people
had to continue to fight fearlessly for their liberty inspite of obvious misconduct on
the part of the British Government. Gandhiji also expressed his.

16. GANDHIJI’S VIEWS ON SPIRITUALISING THE LEGAL PROFESSION

Introduction
After presenting his views regarding lawyer’s duty as to how they should contribute
to people’s rights in law and politics, and save the victims of oppression by the state.
Gandhiji guides people on how one should serve the country without leading a life of
self-indulgence and aim at making money. This usually encourages people to speak
ill of lawyers. Lawyers should not only give up practice but also come forward for
their country.
How to Spiritualise the Profession
During Gandhiji’s visit to Colombo in the year 1927 he had an encounter with a few
law students who visited him at his residence. They urged Gandhiji that he had to
visit their college. Gandhiji understood the situation and he took care of the students
by joking with them, that was enough to put them in humour and they made amends
by recognizing the difficulty of the Reception Committee and then turned the little
time they had with Gandhiji to a good account. And that’s when Gandhiji spoke about
“How to spiritualize the legal profession”.
Gandhiji’s Reply
Gandhiji readily replied them that it was never throughout his career that he departed
from truth and honesty. The first thing that a lawyer wanting to spiritualise his
profession must possess in his mind that he is not working for money but to serve his
country. There are eminent lawyers who have self- sacrificed and devoted their
services to their country. Gandhiji also gives an example from India of the late
Manmohan Ghose who took up a fight against the indigo planters at the cost of his
health and risked his life without charging his poor clients a single penny. Being a
lawyer, they might charge high.
Gandhiji’s Profession and Public Service
Gandhiji himself never let his profession to stand in the way of his public service.
Another important mistake commonly committed by the lawyers is that they protect
their clients, defend them even if they are guilty to which Gandhiji completely
disagrees. As a lawyer it is our duty to present the truth to the judge but not to prove
the guilty as innocent. Then, it is totally left to the lawyers to maintain their dignity.
Earning for active participation of lawyers in the endeavour to attain total
independence.
Birds of a Feather
Gandhiji was invited to a city in Pakistan by the bar association of Peshawar. He was
made to stay at the premier residence where Gandhiji was proudly claimed to be their
dear brother keeping aside the religious differences. Gandhiji was heartful for the
splendid service that they had given him. During the little speech addressed by
Gandhiji he thanked the honour and observed that he was hardly entitled to that
privilege in the first place. The four reasons to make him feel that was:
1. He had been disbarred by his own Inn.
2. He had long forgotten his law.
3. He had often been engaged in breaking the law than in expounding or interpreting
them in the court.
4. The most vital reason was his peculiar views about lawyers and doctors which he
had recorded in his booklet, “the Indian home rule”.
He concluded his speech by saying that a true lawyer was the one who played truth
and service in the first place and then charge for the profession in the next place only.’
A Judge’s Indictment
Gandhiji condensed from a newspaper he read, that it is common for an advocate to
argue that the prosecution story is an entire mixture of various elements by the police
and that there is no strong evidence. In the former case, the accused had posted an
offence on how grievous the offence was. In this case, the court had to try and increase
the sentence. It is the duty of the judge, if he has any suspicion when an advocate
attacks upon the prosecutor or witness to demand from the advocate, an assurance
that he is in the good grounds for making suggestions. These were the remarks of the
chief justice of the Patna high court.
Justice in India
Gandhiji has said all these, to show that justice is practically unobtainable in the courts
in India. Gandhiji feels that those remarks made by the chief justice of Patna against
the lawyers and their clients would amount to a threat to the accused persons and
their clients. Whatever might be the experience of the chief justice, it is that in many
cases, the police story is manufactured. A lawyer who believes in the innocence of his
client, whether he is promoted by him or not, is determined to discover the truth by
ways of cross examination or others. Gandhiji questions if we would suggest as to
what a person in his position who has to record evidence and give judicial decisions,
could check that evil. The atmosphere around the law courts is reducing as any visitor
can see. If India comes into her own justice through truthful and non-violent means,
the administration of law and medicine will be cheap and healthy unlike today.
Reduce life to its simplest terms and devote the savings for the poor.
An Unjudicial Dictum
A correspondent once sent a letter to Gandhi regarding the judgment delivered in
Allahabad by two English Judges. They said that the case was unsatisfactory since it
had less than 5 people in effect, the evidences were not reliable upon eye-witnesses as
it was the country with slight regard to truth and so they had to apply their minds in
order to believe the truth. It is acceptable that judges must not get influenced by such
observations which has no judicial value or that cannot be proved. But in this case it
was clear that the judges were biased and proved their incapability to hold the post.
This case especially affected the poor and so it was important to bring it to the public
notice.
Untruth in Law Courts
A question was asked by a judicial officer regarding the controversy in Harijan
“Fourfold Ruin”. He says that through his experience he feels that it is the Courts and
the institution of lawyers that are mainly responsible for the moral and spiritual
degradation of a village in particular or the public in general. Even respectable people
who can be regarded as soul of honour can lie bare faced in the court of law without
thinking of it. He asks what would Gandhi suggest to a person in his position who is
a judge, can do to check this evil. Gandhiji answered that it was true and that the
atmosphere around law courts was degrading. He had radical views regarding the
administration of justice but he also felt that India had to be more truthful and non-
violent so that the administration of law and medicine would be better. People had to
embrace poverty and serve the poor, and reduce life to its simplest terms.
Hindu Law and Mysore
Bhashyam Iyengar of Bangalore wrote to Gandhiji regarding the administration of
sense to equity and justice to be published in Young India. He mentioned a few
instances;
1. Near and dear relations were denied the right of inheritance and if a man left
the widowed daughter in law as his only surviving relation, his properties
escheat to the government and the poor girl had to get out on the street.
2. Women did not have full rights on the ownership of the property. Even if it
was a widow who incurs debt on the property for her own livelihood, she can
be taken to the court to give up her rights.
3. The deaf and the dumb were excluded from inheritance.
4. Legality of widow-remarriage was not recognized in Mysore.
5. It was doubtful whether post-puberty marriage was legal. The age of consent
should be raised to 14 in the case of girls.
 6. Divorce must be provided if people agree as we had it formerly
7. Inter-caste marriages were not allowed, which must be legalized as inter-
religion was.
8. An orphan was declared ineligible for adoption.
9. Widows were not allowed to adopt unless they had been authorized by the
husband or the consent of sapindas was taken.
There were many such instances. To solve these problems legislature should pass bills
according to the public opinions and to know that a committee was required and so
he had moved a resolution asking fora committee in the assembly. Though it was
passed by the House there was no committee appointed. It seemed like Mysore would
be laughed upon and if reforms were not taken then it would never be possible.
Conclusion
Gandhiji felt that though he received many letters regarding the issues in the society,
some needed immediate attention. Pre-British days did not have rigid Hindu Law
governing, wise kings were free to procure new interpretations to suit new conditions.
But then it was misunderstood later that these shastras were unchangeable. And this
had to be changed if Hindu Society had to progress. In Gandhiji’s opinion a state like
Mysore had no limitation and it is large enough to attempt changes. And according to
their resolution if a committee was formed, it would pave the way to the necessary
changes. And as shown by Sjt. Bhashyam Aiyengar it was necessary to revise the
Hindu Law, no state was better to take this initiative.
17. THE PLACE OF LAWYERS IN A NON-VIOLENT SOCIETY AND AN
ADVOCATE’S DILEMMA
Introduction
Gandhiji was of the view that the case of quarrel between two men should not be taken
into the court of law. He felt that the lawyers had enslaved India and emphasised
Hindu-Mohamedan opposition. One of the readers questioned Gandhiji stating that it
was astonishing to know that the quarrel between two men should not be taken to the
court of law. Gandhiji replied sating that it was not a matter of astonishment but that
of truth. He stressed that the lawyers played a major role in creating aggression
between Hindus and Muslims and confirming the British authority in India.
A Grave Injustice
The Reader explained that it was very easy to make such accusations. The work of
lawyers could not be overlooked because the lawyers showed the road to
independence, protected the poor and secured justice. He illustrated his point by
giving the example of the late Manmohan Ghose. He added that the work of the
Congress was almost wholly dependent on the work of lawyers. He concluded that
disregarding the entire class of lawyers would be committing a grave injustice.
Immorality and Temptation
Gandhiji stated that he believed the same and had no desire to convince the reader
that the lawyers were incapable of good. The lawyers carried out many good deeds as
per their capacity and there was something good in every man. He intended to prove
that law, as a profession, teaches immorality and brings a temptation for position and
luxury. Gandhiji was of the view that two men would quarrel today and become
friends the next day. In case no compromise was done, normal citizen would urge
them to forget the matter. On the contrary, the appointed lawyer of this particular case
would attempt to create arguments in such a manner so as to favour his client. If a
lawyer does not act in this manner, he was regarded as the one who had degraded the
profession.
Profession and Wealth
The lawyer was basically bound to his profession and he might develop further
arguments rather than resolving the dispute. He said that people, who took up the
profession, were often lazy and wished only to increase their own wealth and they
were delighted in the occurrence of a dispute as they can make wealth out of dispute.
The touts of lawyers were like the parasites to the poor people. The lawyers believed
themselves that law was a noble profession and only they charged such high fees.
Gandhiji asked why the lawyers should be paid more than labourers, why their
requirements are so much higher and in what way they were profitable to the country
more than the labourers.
Rift between Families and Misconception
Those, who were aware of the arguments that took place, would be able to confirm
that they were aggravated by the actions of lawyers which had widened the rift
between families. The principalities that were brought under the power of the lawyers
were left in debt and in a similar manner the lives of many people had been reduced
to poverty. The greatest crime committed by lawyers was the assistance to the British
Rule. The British would not be able to exercise their authority over India without the
law courts. It was a misconception that courts were established to benefit the common
people. If two people were to settle their argument, they would not require a court as
a third party to exercise power over them. It was ignorance and simplicity of one’s
mind that would lead them to believe that a stranger would be able to rightly judge a
case by taking one’s money.
Indian judges and lawyers under the British Regime
The British rule could not survive only with English judges, lawyers and police. They
required Indian judges and lawyers. If anyone were to understand the depravity from
which a lawyer is made, he would loathe the profession. The British rule would
collapse if lawyers were to think of practicing in court to be as below one’s dignity.
The lawyers believed that the Indians could not live without quarrels.
An Advocate’s Dilemma
A certain advocate corresponded with Gandhiji and posted his question through his
letter. He stated that he was both a member of the Congress as well as a lawyer
practicing in court. The fight for independence was, in essence, defiance of the
authority of the King. However, he was not in the position to leave his practice since
he had no other source of income and he felt that it was false to continue as a member
of the Congress while being a lawyer in court. The advocate felt that it would not be
within his professional allegiance to remain in both parties as a practicing lawyer.
The Role of Lawyers
Gandhiji emphatically stated that this was the dilemma of the matter. He gave the
example of using a postage stamp or coin with the image of the King asking if this act
would undermine the objective of independence. Similarly, complying with the
instructions of the police or paying tax would imply the acknowledgment of the
King’s authority. Gandhiji asked whether the solution was to submit to the rule of the
King as it was impossible to give full support to the Congress. He stated that one
solution would be to withdraw cooperation to the highest extent possible. It was very
clear that the Congress failed when the lawyers had withdrawn their assistance
because they had been the most effective and active members from the beginning of
the Congress organization.
Conclusion
Gandhiji hoped that there was a requirement of each Congress Committee in seven
hundred thousand villages in India. Even cobblers, scavengers, tanners, tailors and
brick-layers would be able to work with the Congress Committees. At the same time,
the lawyers doubted that they had claimed over the Congress that the laymen were
not allowed to take up posts of leadership. The lawyers should consider it an honour
to train and prepare the willing laymen, who had bravery and confidence, and make
them feel as though they were as capable of such positions as the lawyers.

18. PRIVY COUNCIL AND JUSTICE FROM SIX THOUSAND MILES

Introduction
During ancient times, the concept of justice was inextricably linked with religion and
was embedded in the inscriptive norms of socially stratified caste groups. With the
advent of the British colonial administration, India witnessed a judicial system on the
basis of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. India had a single unified and integrated judicial
system and the Supreme Court of India was at the apex court of the Indian judicial
system. The year 1861 also constituted a conspicuous landmark in the process of
development of legal and judicial institutions in India. It was during this year that the
steps were taken to establish High Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. The
Indian High Courts Act of 1861 was passed by British Parliament to authorize British
monarch to create high Courts in India.
The Final Court of Appeal
The recent debate in the assembly over the proposal to appoint two additional judges
to the Privy Council for the purpose of hearing Indian appeals received controversy
about the location of this final Court of Appeal. It was almost like the futility of going
5000 miles away to get justice. In general, the judges would be able to decide cases
with greater detachment and impartiality at delightful distance. The poor Londoners
could not have this Privy Council in Delhi and the French might have in America and
vice versa. Let no one quote in support of the seat of the Privy Council - in London the
case of the great colonies. A self-respecting India would never tolerate the location of
the final Court of Appeal anywhere else but in India.
Justice from Six Thousand Miles
The distinguished lawyers in India expressed their opinion on the very modest
proposal of Hari Singh Gour for the establishment of the Supreme Court at Delhi.
They were of the view that Privy Council at the distance of six thousand miles away
from India would ensure greater impartiality on the judgements. According to
Gandhiji, the members of the Privy Council were after all human beings and they were
found to betray political bias. A less trained lawyer with a direct knowledge of local
custom would be better to appreciate evidence than those who would have no
knowledge of local conditions.
The Expenses
The distinguished lawyers also stated that the expenses would be more when the final
court of appeals was bought to Delhi. All the lawyers were not genuine patriotic of
the country and their main aim was not focused on extending service and
disseminating justice to the people rather than collecting huge fees. England was the
land of wealth and the lawyers could expect more fees from the clients but the Indian
did not have the capability to pay huge fees to the lawyers. Gandhiji criticised the legal
system in India stating that the legal argument would increase in weight with an
increase in the fees. Moreover, the decision of the judges would be based on their seat
or birth or pigment. Gandhiji also questioned asking whether the respect for
judgement would be commanded by their impartiality or location, birth and the
colour of the skin of the judges.
Conclusion
None of these arguments advanced against the proposal and the deciding factor for
locating the Supreme Court in India for demanding self-respect. No one could breathe
in someone else’s lungs and so the Indians could not borrow or buy justice from
England. He called the Indians to take pride in self- satisfaction and self-respect.
Gandhiji strongly believed that home-made justice was the most suitable for the
Indians. Seeking justice from our own courts and judges should not merely be based
on sentiments. Sentiments had to be regulated and never eradicated. Good
government was not a substitute for self-government and good justice was not the
substitute for home-made justice. Gandhiji agreed with the relocation of the final
Court of Appeal to Delhi in order to cherish patriotic feeling of the Indians.

19. AUNDH CONSTITUTION AND VEILED MARTIAL LAW

Introduction
In the following chapters Gandhiji discusses the Aundh Constitution, the difference
between civil and criminal disobedience acts, Gandhiji’s well-known customs
declaration and the dangerous disguised form of martial law that the Indian
population had been living under. Gandhiji mentions his concerns and worries
regarding the Aundh constitution. Gandhiji explains that the sections under the Penal
code were being used arbitrarily and their judgements being abused. Gandhiji’s
famous declaration at the customs office is also briefly mentioned. Gandhiji also
discusses the disguised form of martial law that suppressed the Indians and its
dangers.
The Aundh Constitution
Gandhiji states that he is fully supportive of the Aundh Constitution. He however,
had two worries regarding the constitution. He mentions that his first concern is with
regards to the voting eligibility for the constitution that was set forth. Gandhiji says
that while he believes in the simple adult franchise policy is anxious with reference to
the literacy of the voters. Gandhiji is of the belief that voting is an honour and a
privilege and thus should have some sort of qualification. He states that a literacy test
would be a good gauge of qualification.
Free Education and Literacy Test
Appreciating the fact that the Aundh constitution has made education free and
compulsory, Gandhiji stated that if the ministry for literacy is sincere then the problem
of illiteracy can be eradicated in a negligible amount of time. Gandhiji said that he had
been assured by Appasaheb that illiteracy would have been expunged from the
Aundh state within six months. With this in mind, Gandhiji hoped that the idea of a
literacy test would not be heavily opposed by the governing bodies.
Justice from the Lower Court
Gandhiji stated that another practice that was out of the ordinary that the Aundh
Constitution had commissioned was the provision of justice from the lower court for
free and in a simple method. While this practice is in fact admirable and ideal, there
was an aspect of the policy which would not be easily accepted. This questionable
practice was the abolishment of intermediary courts and the appointment of a single
judge over the High courts in lieu of the customary bench consisting of highly paid
judges. Gandhiji stated that in a population of 75000, a bench of judges for each case
was both unnecessary as well as impossible. He also mentioned that if a truly sincere
and incorruptible judge was selected, the judge would be just as capable as a bench to
give fair and immaculate judgment. Gandhiji explains that this abolishment also
indicates that the burdensome procedures and volumes of law books and hundreds
of law reports that are integral to the British courts, might also be avoidable.
The Abuse of Criminal Procedure
Gandhiji seeks to bring to light the misuse of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal
Procedure Code for the unjust incarceration of the Indian Civil Disobedience
protestors. Gandhiji explains the misuse of the laws as the government breaking their
own laws. He cites an example of a man who, once created laws for himself and broke
these laws. Gandhiji says that this offence amounts to criminal as he not only breached
the laws against himself but this breach harmed others as well.
Unlawful Offences
The British government was repeatedly defying their own laws and had freely
misused the Indian Penal Code as well as the Criminal Procedure Code. In addition
to the government’s lack of conscience about their disregard of the laws, civil
disobedience protestors did not often argue with orders issued by official
governmental bodies. This led to the occurrence of blatant illegal sentences of the
incarcerated protestors. Mr. Yakub Hassan protested against his arrest and conviction
stating that they were contradictory to Lord Reading’s Viceregal pledge. Gandhiji
mentioned that in addition to this, the action was against the Viceroy’s predecessor’s
communique. There was no possibility of accusing Mr. Yakub Hassan of inciting
violence in the Tanjore district through his Tanjore address as no violence occurred as
a result of the address. A similar case occurred to Mr. Iyer of Deshabakhtan where the
Magistrate actually admitted to there being no mention of violence in the writing for
which he was charged. Mr. Ramaswami Iyengar was also arrested for his writings in
The Hindu despite there being no incitation of violence in his writings.
Dr.Varadarajulu and Mr. Gopalkrishnayya were also arrested on account of their
speeches and writings which not only did not contain provocation of violence, but in
fact called comrades to nonviolence.
Gandhiji’s Customs Declaration
Throughout history there have been two incidents of particularly memorable customs
declarations. One of which was that of Oscar Wilde and the other of Gandhiji. At the
customs office Oscar Wilde stated “I have nothing to declare except my genius”.
Gandhiji was on his way from Bombay to London as the only delegate from the Indian
National Congress to attend the Second Round Table Conference. He arrived at France
to take a train to London. At the French sea port Marseilles, on the 29th of August,
1931, when asked if he had anything to declare, Gandhiji immediately responded “I
am a poor mendicant. My kit consists of two spinning wheels, a few jail utensils, a
goat’s milk, four loin cloths, two towels – and my reputation which cannot be worth
much”.
The Disguised Form of Martial Law
Gandhiji saw the Ordinance as the revival of the Press Act which was far more deadly
than its predecessor. He stated that the citizens of India could sense it under a masked
version of martial law. Gandhiji stated that when there was freedom at their doorstep,
they must continue to fight and that at the end of the struggle, when the efforts of each
person are measured, the press should not be discovered as those who did little to
assist.
Conclusion
Gandhiji encouraged the press saying that the government has not threatened to
confiscate pens and speech, though he sees that it would be possible for them to do
so. Their ability to speak is reason enough to continue to struggle for freedom.
Gandhiji says that while there is breath in the citizens of India, they will, as one,
believe in disaffection, sedition and disloyalty as the national mind-set to ensure the
removal of the existing form of British government.