A hundred years ago | January 12, 1918 Archives

Tribunal’s Jurisdiction Questioned.

Mr. C.R. Das, Barrister-at-Law with Mr. A. Sen, Barrister-at-Law appeared to-day (January 11) before Mr. Justice Atkinson and moved on behalf of one Parmeshwar Ahir for a writ of Habeas Corpus under the following circumstances: Parmeshwar Ahir along with others was convicted of dacoity and rioting in during the last Bakrid trouble by the Special Tribunal appointed under the Defence of India Act, and now sitting at Arrah. The Tribunal consists of Mr. Allanson, I.C.S., Mr. Patel, Barrister-at-Law and T.R. Khastoir. Mr. Das averred that neither the Governor-General in Council nor the Local Government had any power to constitute a tribunal to try criminal offences independently of Acts of Parliament. If the so-called tribunal was not a court then the sentence was illegal, and his Lordship could issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The old supreme court had power to issue the Writ into mofussil and that the Patna High Court had inherited this power through the Calcutta High Court. His Lordship issued a rule on the Commissioners of the Tribunal as well as on the Crown to show cause why a writ of Habeas Corpus should not issue, and made the rule returnable on the 21st January and intimated that the matter would be heard by the full court.

Related Topics
Recommended for you
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Aug 11, 2020 12:04:30 PM | https://www.thehindu.com/archives/tribunals-jurisdiction-questioned/article22422687.ece

Next Story