THE CHUPRA CASE—SEPARATION OF THE JUDICIAL AND EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS IN INDIA. (Hansard, 14 May 1900)

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

My Lords, I rise, in accordance with the 7 notice standing in my name on your Lordships' Paper, to call the attention of the House to an article in the Law Times of 13th January on the Indian Executive and the Judiciary; and to the evils of uniting judicial and executive functions, as exemplified in the Chupra case; and to the insufficient action of the Bengal Government, with respect to those that did well and those that did ill in that case; and to ask what compensation the Bengal Government has made or will be ordered to make Constable Narsingh. I will read the chief part of the article in the Law Times, which speaks for itself and leaves me but little to add. It is as follows— In thus summarising the results of the scandalous incident, it is by way of securing attention to its grave bearing on magisterial administration in the Indian country districts under the present conditions of the much-mixed functions entrusted to European civilian officers. It would be impossible, in the space available, to give any complete narrative of the tangled outrages and illegalities committed. Mr. Pennell's judgment alone would occupy three of our pages; but readers may rest assured that all the essential facts are duly recorded; they having been set out in a Calcutta journal, the Amrita Bazar Patrika, without contradiction, though the demi-official journal of Allahabad has made some attempt to deprecate the severe censures passed on the actors in this cruel Dreyfus case in rural Bengal. Let us now squeeze the story into as bold and brief a form as possible. It began with Mr. J. C. Twidell, the (civilian) district magistrate, also revenue officer, giving orders to the police to induce the villagers to set about repairs of certain embankments and watercourses without pay, but by dint of ' natural persuasion. These orders were entrusted to Mr. Corbett, a very young assistant superintendent of police, who, with Mr. Simkins, the local engineer, who had charge of the tanks and waterways, went to the village of Fulmeria to ' persuade ' the ryots to do the cheap bit of public work. One of the first men they accosted for the purpose happened to be a constable, Narsingh by name, from another district, who was on sick leave. Forced labour in any shape has long been illegal in India; and though the district magistrate, Mr. Twidell, seemed to have forgotten or ignored this elementary fact, the village constable—whom they had ordered to fetch some fellows to do the work—was well aware of it. He made reply: 'Why should we help? We are free men,' also making objection for himself that as a Rajput it was against his caste to do earthwork. Thereupon the young policeman told him to go and get some low fellows to do it. Mr. Corbett, seeing that Narsingh was a constable, thought he would have authority with the villagers. On his explaining that he was not on duty, and belonged to quite another district, Mr. Corbett began to bully him fiercely, and threatened he would get him 8 dismissed, Mr. Simkins adding as an ultimatum, 'Will you go or not go?' On this, Narsingh, the worm, turned again, and, as the two officers alleged, snapped his fingers at them, and said he did not care 'that' for their illegal orders. Then this 'boy' of a police superintendent seized Narsingh by the shoulders, kicked him behind, and told him to go. But the worm again turned, and approached, as Corbett asserted, in a menacing attitude, when Simkins hit him on the head with a rattan, and Corbett struck him three times on the face, knocking him down. Then Shaking, the engineer, who is a big man, literally sat upon the unlucky Narsingh, while both he and Corbett, with their rattan sticks, gave him a good hammering (Corbett's own confession), after which Narsingh was bundled oil to work, but after a few minutes' attempt at delving he was let off, for, as Corbett avowed in evidence, the hammered constable was looking sick! The villagers, duly impressed by this peculiar example of 'your boasted British jurisprudence' began to follow Simkins to their forced labour. It may be mentioned that though they had helplessly looked on whilst Narsingh was in chancery, a more plucky Chamar (outcast) had made at the beaters with his stave; but the engineer, equal to the occasion, seized the Chamar's stick, and with it gave him a crack on the head. Thus order, if not law, was restored to the village of Fulmeria. Now it was time for legal proceedings to begin, as they did next day in a fashion worthy of Barataria. Narsingh, as we have seen, knew a little law, and it might be expected he would take out a summons for assault and battery. But before doing so, his bruises needed surgical aid, and with that object he presented himself at the Chupra Hospital with his two black eyes and other decorations. Surgeon-Captain Maddox took him in, of course, but did nothing for him other than surgically, sending word to Mr. Corbett that he had the erring constable at his disposal. Thereupon Corbett drove over to the hospital, arrested Narsingh, and took him to the house of his superior,' Mr. Bradley, the district superintendent of police. There he appears to have been bullied with threats of prosecution, which, it was suggested, he might be spared if he would resign his place as constable and go about his business. But Narsingh had still manliness left in him to refuse this tender mercy, so he was walked oft' to the Bungalow of the (Civilian) District Magistrate, Mr. Twidell, with whom the two European police officers consulted as to which sections of the Penal Code would serve for prosecution of the man whose crime—as the Sessions Judge later on remarked—seemed to have been ' the very serious one of having been assaulted by a European official.' However, the council of three found that Sections 253 and 186 I.P.C. might do to frame a charge founded on Corbett's report, and forthwith Mr. Twidell wrote out an 'order' directing prosecution before a deputy magistrate, Moulvy Zakir Hussein, one of his own subordinates. The gist of these charges (to which another was added in the course of the proceedings), as expressed by Mr. Deputy Moulvy in his finding, was ' an insult sufficiently capable of provoking (the young 9 officer Corbett) to commit a breach of the peace,' and, having found Narsingh ' guilty,' a sentence of ' two months rigorous imprisonment' was passed on him, thus affixing to the unhappy 'hammered' constable the stigma of a felon, But before this predetermined result was reached there had been certain extra legal proceedings that must be mentioned, as illustrating how the wisest of Codes and the best rules of procedure may be rendered futile by personal neglect or daring violation thereof. On the first hearing Mr. Bradley, the District Superintendent of Police, not content with his previous bullying and private consultation with Mr. Twidell, the superior civilian magistrate, must needs plant himself on the Bench beside Deputy Moulvy, with whom 'he discussed the law and evidence' whilst the hearing was going on. After this he stepped across to Twidell's house, speedily followed by the trying magistrate with the ' record,' where they considered the course to be taken at the next hearing, the latter having previously consulted with Mr. Twidell in the train as they travelled to Chupra. Here it may be mentioned that when Mr. Deputy Moulvy, in the subsequent proceedings before Mr. ' Penuell, the Scissions Judge, was called to account for these private confabs in prevision of his finding and sentence, he naively expressed it that it was to avoid future troubles, for, as he further explained, ' sometimes when cases are disposed of, and (his superior) magistrates do not like it, they find fault, and so I settled it beforehand.' If we are to take this as an example of how in rural Bengal justice is sometimes administered, it is difficult to conceive anything more grotesque and scandalous; and as to Mr. Twidell's part in these Savoy opera proceedings in real life, he, when before the sessions judge, after much wriggling, was constrained to ' admit that it is difficult for him to say that we did not give Moulvy Zakir Hussein any hint as to how he was to decide the case.' It may be remarked here, in passing, that Mr. Twidell, the district magistrate, is a civilian of only about live years standing, while Mr. Deputy Moulvy has exercised magisterial functions for nearly thirty years; but as he is one of a class who can never rise above their subordinate position, it may he understood how that, in the language of the Sessions Judge, he is a mere servile tool in the hands of his (local) superiors,' a man without conscience, With no fear of God in his eyes.' Another instance of the shameless personal interference with the course of justice in the case may be traced to the circumstance that Mr. Twidell, when formally asked in the judge's court to proffer explanation on his part in the irregularities there disclosed, refused to give it, sheltering himself under the plea of advice from his superior, Mr. Bourdillon, Chief Commissioner of the Patna Division, who is a senior civilian officer close on the period for retirement. Yet this gentleman has so little regard for impartiality in judicial proceedings that he committed the impropriety of writing a demi-official letter to the Sessions Judge, urging that the evidence of the witnesses should be taken in camera., Two or three further circumstances must be mentioned in order to show how the case 10 was disposed of. It is doubtful whether these outrageous proceedings would have been formally brought to the cognisance of the Sessions Judge, had not the advocate, Mr. Jaganath Sahai. whom Narsingh had secured before the final hearing in the Deputy's Court, taken the 'unusual course'—which Mr. Pennell commended in the instance of himself swearing an affidavit ' reciting the story of these extra-judicial proceedings,' which comprised many grave irregularities besides those essential points we have selected. It was with much difficulty that Narsingh obtained bail after the first hearing; he then preferred charges against Messrs. Corbett and Sinkins of causing hurt, and of imposing unlawful compulsory labour. The same deputy magistrate heard the indictment in its usual form of a petition, but this was dismissed as 'utterly without ground … under Section 203 C.P.C.' But later on the Sessions Judge, in the exercise of his 'revisional authority,' set aside Monlvy Zakir's dismissal order and directed a fresh inquiry to be made by his superior. In passing the order, Mr. Pennell directed that it should be dealt with by another district magistrate, Mr. Macpherson, seeing that Mr. Twidell himself was ' at the bottom of the dismissal by this deputy. Otherwise he should have bad to make it a direct reference to the Calcutta Higli Court.' So this is how the subsidiary case of Narsing v. Corbett and Sinkins was left when last mentioned. It remains to be seen how the higher authorities will take notice or avoid taking notice of the congeries of scandals disclosed in the judgment recorded by the Sessions Judge of Chupra. The searching and comprehensive review of its flagitious magisterial muddle is worthy of the best judicial traditions of the Indian Civilian Bench, and so far affords ample vindication of the British Indian Codes, when faithfully administered. But Mr. Pennell, who had' the courage to do his obvious duty, has been dealt with penally by the executive authority of Bengal, of whom Sir John Woodburn, the present Lieutenant-Governor, is the bead. Will the Chief Justice of Calcutta, Sir Francis Maclean, sit by whilst an insidious side-blow is thus dealt at the impartial administration of justice within his province? Such evasion of duty, were it possible, would tend to weaken the fibres of the strongest cord that hinds together our Indian Empire. Then there are the highest executive authorities, who are bound to see to it that such subordinate official conspiracies against the reign of law as are disclosed in the Chupra case shall not ever be possible; for we quite admit this is an exceptional instance of miscarriage in Indian judicial administration. Those executive authorities are_ the Legal Member of the Supreme Executive and the Governor-General in Council, Lord Curzon. This case does not require much comment, the article of the Law Times having supplied enough. From the precedents set in regard to inquiry as to military outrages, it may be expected that I shall be told, and that the House will be told, that these civilian outrages did not take 11 place. If so, the India Office will have to make it good by prosecuting the Law Times for libel, since its statements if not true are the most discrediting statements ever made of any administration. I regret that the editor of the Law Times, Mr. Crump, died about ten days ago. One of the chief objects in calling the attention of the House to this case is because of the light it casts upon the evils of uniting executive and judicial functions. When I brought this subject before the House in May, 1893, both the then Secretary of State for India (Lord Kimberley) and his predecessor (Viscount Cross) were fully conscious of the necessity of a reform to remedy these evils. At that time it was supposed that financial difficulties stood in the way of reform. Financial difficulties are more likely to increase than to diminish; but since then some Hindu gentlemen—in accord, I believe, with Sir Richard Garth, a former Chief Justice of Calcutta—have devised a scheme of re-distribution of officials and of official duties, which would have secured the object aimed at without any important additions to the expense of the administration. With regard to the notice as to the inadequate dealing with the case by the Bengal Government, the dismissal from the service would appear to be what would have been expected for Mr. Twidell, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Simkins, and Mr. Corbett. Mr. Bourdillon, who tried to influence the Sessions Judge, does not appear even to have been censured, but promoted to be Chief Secretary to the Bengal Government. He is near his retirement from the service, so cannot plead youthful inexperience; it would be adequate and just that the period for his retirement should be immediate. The too pliant deputy magistrate, Moulvy Zakir Hussein, should also retire upon his pension without delay. What compensation has been or will be made to the constable Narsingh for his ill-treatment, and what reward should be given him for upholding the credit of the Indian Government in respect of abolition of forced labour? How long is the Sessions Judge, Mr. Pennell, to be left in an unhealthy post, to which he was appointed shortly after pronouncing his judgment? The Law Times calls this appointment an insidious side-blow at the impartial administration of justice. The Secretary of the Bengal Government 12 denied that this appointment had been made on account of the judgment, but that it had been made before they had seen the judgment. A writer in India, under the signature of an "Englishman," says this is a quibble, and that they knew of the judgment though they might not have seen it. In any case, by this time everybody has seen and may have read the judgment. How is it, then, that the Sessions Judge, who has upheld the credit of the administration of British justice and law, has not been removed from Noakhaly or promoted, by the Bengal Government or by the Indian Government or by order of the Secretary of State for India? Although I have given notice to move for papers, I do not intend to do so. There ought to be two papers, one containing some explanation from the Bengal Government, and the other a despatch from the Secretary of State. M37 object in giving notice that I should move for papers was to secure the right of reply, but as the seat at the Table usually occupied by the Reading Clerk is vacant, and there is no one to supply what Lord Randolph Churchill used to call my "aural of the ears oral of the mouth deficiencies," I am perfectly at the mercy of my noble friend the Under Secretary. Whatever the noble Earl may say it will be impossible for me to reply to him to-night.