Defence of India Act 1915
Defence of India (Criminal Law Amendment) Act,1915 | |
---|---|
The Governor-General in Council | |
Long title
| |
Citation | Act No.IV of 1915 |
Territorial extent | Whole of British India |
Enacted by | The Governor-General in Council |
Signed | 19 March 1915 |
Commenced | 19 March 1915 |
Repealed by | |
Act 4 of 1922 | |
Status: Repealed |
The Defence of India Act 1915, also referred to as the Defence of India Regulations Act, was an emergency
Background
Punjab and Bengal, along with Maharashtra, became hotbeds of revolutionary nationalist violence against British rule in India in the first decade of the 20th century. 1905 partition of Bengal and the 1907 colonisation bill in Punjab fed growing discontent. In Bengal, revolutionary organisations like
Early laws
Preventive detention
The Bengal Regulation of 1812 and
In June 1907 local governments were further authorised to initiate proceedings against local press publishing seditious material amongst civilian population or the army.
Criminal law amendment 1908
Failure of prosecution in a number of cases under the Criminal procedures act 1898 led to a special act whereby crimes of nationalist violence were to be tried by a special tribunal composed of three high-court judges. December 1908 saw the passage of the Criminal Law amendments under the terms of Regulation III of 1818 and to suppress associations formed for seditious conspiracies.
World War I
The
Ghadr
British intelligence in North America indicated early in the war that the
Bengal
In the meantime, the situation in Bengal worsened considerably following the
Defence of India act
On 19 March 1915,
for the purpose of securing the public safety and the defence of British India and as to the powers and duties of public servants and other persons in furtherance of that purpose...
Considerable pressure for the passage of the act was from
Scope
The law was to be valid for the duration of the war and for six months thereafter "for public safety" and "the defence of British India". The main object of the law made it illegal to communicate with the enemy, obtaining information, spreading false reports, as well as any activities that the government saw prejudicial to the war effort. The act allowed local governments to make rules detain indefinitely,[2] without representation, and to try by special tribunals persons "reasonably suspected" of being of hostile origin or acting in a manner prejudicial to the safety of the empire.[19] committing or conspiring to commit crimes either described in the act, or crimes which maybe punishable by death, transportation or at least seven year imprisonment.[20] Power of detention, unlike under DORA, was carried by subordinate officers. For Trials already initiated under the Criminal procedures act 1898 or the 1908 Criminal law amendment were exempt from the act. Prosecution was to follow the procedures prescribed in the criminal procedures act 1898, but was superseded by the special powers and discretion of court. Crucially however, the Commissioners could take direct cognisance of the offences alleged and therefore preliminary procedures could be disposed off with.
Implementation
The act gave powers to local government to appoint three commissioners for trials who may be below the status of high-court judges. At least two would be Sessions judges or additional sessions judges for at least three years, were qualified for appointment as Judges of a High Court, or
The act allowed the commissioners to accept as evidence statements recorded by a magistrates without scrutiny to cross examination and superseded the standards of evidence proscribed in the Indian evidence act 1872. Further the act allowed commissioners to accept such recorded evidence where the witness was unavailable or dead. This measure was intended to secure and safeguard against intimidation and assassinations by revolutionaries of approvers. There was no right to trial by jury. The act excluded from appeal or judicial review the decisions of the commissioners appointed under the Defence of India act.
Although designed to maintain order and curtail revolutionary movement, the law was in practice used in widespread scale from limiting revolutionaries, through arresting perpetrators of religious violence, to curtailing the voice of moderate political leaders.
Impact
At the time of its enactment, the Defence of India act received universal support from Indian non-officiating members in the Governor General's council, from moderate leaders within Indian Political Movement. The British war effort had received popular support within India and the act received support on the understanding that the measures enacted were necessary in the war-situation. Its application saw a significant curtailment in revolutionary violence in India. However, the wide scope and widespread use amongst general population and against even moderate leaders led to growing revulsion within Indian population.
Revolutionary violence
The enactment of the law saw 46 executions and 64 life sentences handed out to revolutionaries in Bengal and Punjab in the
Moderate dissent
The application of the act was not limited to those suspected of revolutionary crimes. It gradually came to be used in coercing and suppressing the voice of many nationalist leaders, even of moderate views, where regional administration felt their opinion or views were seditious to British rule in India, or dangerous to the administration.
Post-WWI
The Defence of India Act, in its implementation, was increasingly reviled. The unpopularity was such that the Lucknow session of the Indian National Congress in 1917 passed a resolution expressing alarm at the extensive use of the act, and urged the Government that its use be under same principles as the Defence of the Realm Act.[
Later laws
Rowlatt act
With the impending lapse of the 1915 act, the
1939 act
The Defence of India act 1915 was re-enacted in a more severe form at the onset of World War II as the Defence of India act 1939. Although enacted on 29 September 1939 it was deemed to come into force from 3 September 1939, the day when the Second World War began. The act was used notoriously during the war in subduing the independence movement. It expired six months after the termination of the war and was ultimately repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1947 (Act II of 1948).
Independent India
The
Notes
- ^ a b Horniman 1984, p. 44
- ^ a b c d Bates 2007, p. 118
- ^ a b c Popplewell 1995, p. 210
- ^ a b c Riddick 2006, p. 92
- ^ "The Hindu : Preventive detention an anachronism". www.thehindu.com. Archived from the original on 8 March 2015. Retrieved 27 January 2022.
- ^ Patel 1995, p. 532
- ^ a b Ghosh 1995, p. 398
- ^ a b c Riddick 2006, p. 93
- ^ Horniman 1984, p. 42
- ^ Horniman 1984, p. 43
- ^ Popplewell 1995, p. 171
- ^ Popplewell 1995, p. 165
- ^ Popplewell 1995, p. 166
- ^ Popplewell 1995, p. 160
- ^ Popplewell 1995, p. 161
- ^ Kannabiran & Singh 2009, p. 235
- ^ Popplewell 1995, p. 201
- ^ a b Samaddara 2007, p. 94
- ^ Halliday, Karpik & Feeley(2012), pp. 63
- ^ "A collection of the acts passed by the Governor General of Indian in Council in the year 1915. Records of Indian Law Ministry" (PDF). Indian Ministry of Law & Justice. Superintendent Government Printing. 1916. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 July 2014. Retrieved 9 May 2015.
- ^ Horniman 1984, p. 45
- ^ "PERSONS INTERNED.". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. 22 October 1919. col. 52-3W.
- ^ a b Bates 2007, p. 119
References
- Bates, Crispin (2007), Subalterns and Raj: South Asia since 1600, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-21483-4.
- Ghosh, S.K. (1995), Terrorism, World Under Siege, Ashish Publishing House, ISBN 8170246652
- OCLC 12553945
- Lovett, Sir Verney (1920), A History of the Indian Nationalist Movement, New York, Frederick A. Stokes Company, ISBN 81-7536-249-9
- Kannabiran, Kalpana; Singh, Ranbir (2009), Challenging The Rules(s) of Law: Colonialism, Criminology and Human Rights in India., SAGE Publications Inc., ISBN 9780761936657
- Ilbert, Courtenay (1917), "British India (in Review of Legislation, 1915; British Empire).Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Ser., Vol. 17. (1917), pp. 132-139.", Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, New York, Frederick A. Stokes Company, ISSN 1479-5973
- Patel, Vitalbhai J. (1995), Selected Works of Vithalbhai J. Patel: 1925-1926, Mittal Publications, ISBN 8170994209
- Popplewell, Richard J. (1995), Intelligence and Imperial Defence: British Intelligence and the Defence of the Indian Empire 1904–1924, Routledge, ISBN 0-7146-4580-X, archived from the originalon 26 March 2009, retrieved 11 May 2015
- Riddick, John (2006), The History of British India: A Chronology, Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 9780313322808
- Samaddara, Ranbir (2007), The Materiality of Politics. Vol. 1, Anthem Press, ISBN 9781843312512
- Halliday, Terrence C.; Lucien Karpik (2012). Malcolm M. Feeley (ed.). Fates of Political Liberalism in Post-British Colony: The Politics of the Legal Complex (google books) (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press, 2012. ISBN 978-1-107-01278-3. Retrieved 6 June 2012.