§ Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary whether his attention has been called to the judgment in the Karur sedition case, in which Messrs. Justices Benson and Wallis held that the words used by the accused need not be set out and proved, but that the substance of words used is sufficient, Mr. Justice Sankaran Nair dissenting from this view; whether he is aware that the two police-constables upon whose report of the accused's speech the prosecution was based, and which was the main 208 evidence in the trial, were proved to be incompetent for the work of reporting; and, having regard to these facts, whether steps will be taken by the Government to amend the law so as to put it on all-fours with the law of sedition as in this country?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe Secretary of State has seen a newspaper report of the judgment in the case referred to. He is advised that on that report there was no difference between the judges as to the law in the matter; the difference was in regard to the credit to be attached to the evidence, two judges holding that the evidence was trustworthy and the third that it was not. It does not appear from the judgment that the police-constables who reported the speech forming the subject of the charge were proved to be incompetent. There is no difference in substance between the English and the Indian law upon the point raised in the question, and no alteration of the Indian law appears to be called for.