Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:15:32.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“A Peripatetic World Court” Cosmopolitan Courts, Nationalist Judges and the Indian Appeal to the Privy Council

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2014

Rohit De
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In early 1943, Lord Wilfred Green, the Master of Rolls and the head of the Chancery Division of the British judiciary, authored a secret memorandum proposing that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council become a “peripatetic court” that would travel throughout the British Empire. This article explores the origins and politics of this proposal to provide a critical re-description of the role of the Privy Council and the circulation of law within the British Empire.

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , November 2014 , pp. 821 - 851
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. “Privy Council: Conditions for Appointments of Indians to” India Office Records British Library (hereafter IOR) L/PJ/8/115.

2. For a recent survey of this literature, see Benton, Lauren, “Introduction to AHR Special Forum: Law and Empire in the Global Perspective,” The American Historical Review 117 (2012): 1092–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hussin, Iza, “Circulation of Law, Colonial Precedents, Contemporary Questions,” Oñati Socio-Legal Series 2, no. 7 (2011): 18–32.Google Scholar This was also acknowledged by colonial judges and lawyers through the twentieth century. See, for example, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, “Law as a Link of Empire,” Canadian Bar Review 1, (1923): 19–32Google Scholar; and Bentwich, Norman, “The Limitation of the Jurisdiction of the Privy Council” Juridical Review 47 (1935): 30–36Google Scholar.

3. The recent resurgence of interest in the Privy Council is demonstrated by the existence of two multiyear research projects involving dozens of scholars, several symposia, and a digitization project. These are “Judging Empire: The Global Reach of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council” led by Dr. Nandini Chatterjee at the University of Plymouth http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/pages/view.asp?page=32920 (accessed date 8 December 2013) and “Judging Empire: Colonial Law and Imperial Justice in British Africa” funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and led by Prof Bonny Ibawoh at McMaster University.

4. Howell, Peter Anthony, The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1833–1876: Its Origins, Structure, and Development (Cambridge University Press Archive, 1979).Google Scholar

5. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Role of the JCPC, 2014 http://www.jcpc.uk/about/role-of-the-jcpc.html#crown_dependencies

6. Sharafi, Mitra, Parsi Legal Culture in British India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

7. MacMillan, Ken, The Atlantic Imperial Constitution: Center and Periphery in the English Atlantic World (Palgrave Macmillan: New York, 2011)Google Scholar; Hueslbosch, Daniel, Constituting Empire: New York and the Transformation of Constitutionalism in the Atlantic World, 1664–1830 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Hulsebosch, Daniel, “A Discrete and Cosmopolitan Minority: The Loyalists, the Atlantic World, and the Origins of Judicial Review,” Chicago–Kent Law Review 74 (2006): 6–25Google Scholar; Bilder, Mary Sarah, The Transatlantic Constitution: Colonial Legal Culture and the Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; and Bilder, Mary Sarah, “Colonial Constitutionalism and Constitutional Law,” in Transformations in American Legal History: Essays in Honor of Morton J. Horwitz, ed. Brophy, Alfred L. and Hamilton, Daniel W. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009), 28–57.Google Scholar

8. Mallampalli, Chandra, Race, Religion and Law in Colonial India: Trials of an Inter-racial Family (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chatterjee, Nandini, “Muslim or Christian? Family Quarrels and Religious Diagnosis in a Colonial Court,” The American Historical Review 117 (2012): 1101–22Google Scholar; and Ibhawoh, Bonny, Imperial Justice: Africans in Empire's Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Ilbert, Courtney, Journal of the Society of Comparitive Legislation, Vol. IX, p. 1, 23.Google Scholar

10. As cited in Sir Rankin, George, “The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,” Cambridge Law Journal 7 (1939–1941): 2–22.Google Scholar

11. “Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,” The Times of India, February 10, 1949, 6.

12. For a review of the field, see Tomlins, Chris, “How Autonomous is Law,” Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 3 (2007): 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Haldane, Viscount, “The Work for the Empire of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,” The Cambridge Law Journal 1 (1922): 143–55Google Scholar. The exotic nature of the JCPC's docket is appreciated by more recent commentaries as well. See Richardson, Ivor, “The Privy Council as the Final Court for the British Empire,” Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 43 (2012): 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Ibawoh, Bonny, Native Palavers, Imperial Justice: African Appeals before the British Privy Council 1860–1960 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Morrison, Dennis, “Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Death Penalty in the Commonwealth Caribbean: Studies in Judicial Activism,” Nova Law Review 30 (2005): 403.Google Scholar

15. Bentwich, Norman, “The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as Model of an International Court of Human Rights,” The International Law Quarterly 2 (1948): 392–401Google Scholar. (The limits to Bentwich's liberalism comes through his approving citation of the Jersulem Jaffa District Committee Case [126] Appeal Cases (AC) 321, where the JCPC reversed an order of the Palestine High Court that had declared the government's appropriation of a local well as infringing the civil rights of Arab inhabitants).

16. Boutell, Henry Sherman, “The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,” Georgetown Law Journal 9 (1920–21): 1–11.Google Scholar

17. Campbell, Enid M., “The Decline of the Jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council” Australia Law Journal 33 (1959): 196Google Scholar; Swinfen, David, Imperial Appeal: The Debate on the appeal to the Privy Council, 1833–1986 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; and CGM, Jr., “Abolition of Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by Canada and the Irish Free State,” Virginia Law Review 22 (1936) 243–349.Google Scholar

18. J.P. Eddy “India and the Privy Council: The Last Appeal,” Law Quarterly Review (1950): 206–15.Google Scholar

19. For an account on the unique status of India within the British Empire in particular, and imperialism in general see, Low, David Anthony, Britain and Indian Nationalism: An Imprint of Ambiguity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).Google Scholar

20. Benton, Lauren, A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires 140–1900 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012)Google Scholar. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for drawing my attention to this.

21. “Privy Council: Conditions for Appointments of Indians, to”, IOR/L/PJ/8/115.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. Dutton, David, Simon: A Political Biography of Sir John Simon (London: Aurum Press, 1992).Google Scholar

25. Report of the Indian Statutory Commission (London: Great Britain: Royal Commissions, 1930).Google Scholar

26. Memorandum by the Lord Chancellor, November 23, 1943, “Privy Council: Conditions for Appointments of Indians, to”, IOR/L/PJ/8/115.

27. Benton, Lauren, “Colonial Law and Cultural Difference: Jurisdictional Politics and the Formation of the Colonial State,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 41 (1999): 563–88Google Scholar; and “The Semi-Autonomous Judge in Colonial India: Chivalric Imperialism Meets Anglo-Islamic Dower and Divorce Law,” Indian Economic and Social History Review 46 (2009): 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. Segal, Jeffrey and Spaeth, Stephen, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model (1993). Keith, Arthur Berriedale. The Soverighty of the British Dominions. London: Macmillan, 1929.Google Scholar

29. Sharafi, Mitra, “A New History of Colonial Lawyering: Likhovski and Legal Identities in the British Empire,” Law and Social Inquiry 32 (2007): 1059–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Justice Davar of the Bombay High Court); Sen, Ronojoy, Articles of Faith. Religion, Secularism, and the Indian Supreme Court (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar (Justice Gajendragatkar of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court of India); Likhosvki, Assaf, Law and Identity in Mandate Palestine (University of North Carolina Press, Studies in Legal History Series, 2006)Google Scholar; (Norman Bentwich, Attorney General Mandate Palestine); Nandy, Ashis, “The Other Within: The Strange Case of Radhabinod Pal's Judgment on Culpability,” New Literary History 23 (1992): 45–67Google Scholar (Justice Radha Binod Pal, Calcutta High Court and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal); Alan M. Guenther, “Syed Mahmood and the Transformation of Muslim Law in British India,” (PhD diss., McGill University, 2004) (Justice Mahmood of the Allahabad High Court); and Widner, Jennifer A.. Building a Rule of Law (New York: W.W Norton, 2001)Google Scholar (Chief Justice Nyalali of Tanzania).

30. Baxi, Upendra, “Taking Suffering Seriously,” in Judges and Judicial Power: Essays in Honour of Justice V.R Krishna Iyer, ed. Dhavan, Rajeev and Sudarshan, R. (Bombay: N.M. Tripathi, 1985)Google Scholar; and Hay, Douglas, Linebaugh, Peter, Rule, John Grahan, Thompson, Edward Palmer and Winslow, Cal, Albion's Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England (New York: Pantheon Books, 1975).Google Scholar

31. Esptein, Lee, Knight, Jack, and Shvetsova, Olga, “The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government,” Law and Society Review 35 (2002): 117–64.Google Scholar

32. Proceedings of Imperial Conference, 1911, 134.

33. Hughes, Hector, National Sovereignty and Judicial Autonomy in the British Commonwealth of Nations (London: P.S King and Son, 1931), 115.Google Scholar

34. Ewart, J.S, “Judicial Appeals to the JCPC: Case for Discontinuing Appeals,” Queen's Quarterly 37 (1930): 456–73.Google Scholar

35. Arthur B. Keith, Sovereignty of the British Dominions, 258.

36. Kugle, Scott Alan, “Framed, Blamed and Renamed: The Recasting of Islamic Jurisprudence in Colonial South Asia,” Modern Asian Studies 35 (2001): 257–313Google Scholar; and Kozlowski, Gregory, Muslim Endowments in British India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. Boutel, Henry, “The Judiical Committee of the Privy Council,” Georgetown Law Journal 9 (1920–21): 1–11.Google Scholar

38. “No Appointment of Indian Judges,” The Times of India, July 12, 1928. (Two clauses of the Administration of Justice Bill that would have provided two additional Indian judges with special Indian experience at the salary of ₤2000 a year was dropped after resistance in the parliamentary standing committee), p. 2.

39. “Privy Council Practice,” The Times of India, November 2, 1928, p. 1.

40. Hector Hughes, National Sovereignty and judicial autonomy in the British Commonwealth of Nations. London: PS King & Son, Limited, 1931.

41. S. 1025 of the Canadian Criminal Code now reads “1025. Notwithstanding any royal prerogative, or anything contained in the Interpretation Act or in the Supreme Court Act, no appeal shall be brought in any criminal case from any judgment or order of any Court in Canada to any court of appeal or authority by which in the United Kingdom appeals or petitions to His Majesty in Council may be heard.”

42. Nadan v. The King [1926] AC 482.

43. Ibid.

44. “Decline of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: Current State of Appeals from the British Dominions,” Harvard Law Review 60 (1947): 1138–45Google Scholar; and C.G.M Jr, “Abolition of Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by Canada and the Irish Free State,” Virginia Law Review 22 (1936): 243–349.Google Scholar

45. David B. Swinfen, Imperial Appeal: The Debate on the Appeal to the Privy Council, 1833–1986. Manchester University Press, 1987.

46. Alexander E. Hull and Co v. Mckenna [1926] IR 402.

47. Ibid.

48. Haldane, Viscount, “The Work for the Empire of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,” The Cambridge Law Journal 1 (1922): 143–55.Google Scholar

49. Morgan, J.H., Dominion Status: Rhodes Memorial Lecture, Friday 15th March, 1929 (London, 1929).Google Scholar

50. Swinfen, Imperial Appeal, 136.

51. Partha Chatterjee suggests that the “Indianization” of the judiciary and the other branches of government in the 1920s and 1930s led to the dismantling of structures of colonial rule from within. Chatterjee, Partha, A Princely Impostor?: The Kumar of Bhawal and the Secret History of Indian Nationalism (New Delhi, Orient Blackswan, 2004).Google Scholar

52. Figures in Table 1 compiled by Enid Campbell. Campbell, Enid M, “The Decline of the Jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,” Australia Law Journal 33 (1959): 196.Google Scholar

53. Figures in Table 2 compiled by Lord Green, Master of Rolls, “Privy Council: Conditions for Appointments of Indians, to,” IOR/L/PJ/8/115.

54. Maitland, Frederick, A Sketch of English Legal History (New York: G.P Putnam's and Sons, 1915).Google Scholar

55. Privy Council: Conditions for Appointments of Indians, to” IOR/L/PJ/8/115.

56. Mohandas Gandhi criticized this aspect of the Privy Council in an essay in Young India. I am grateful to Mitra Sharafi for pointing out this reference. See Mohandas K. Gandhi, “Justice from Six Thousand Miles,” Young India, August 12, 1926, 281, as reprinted in Gandhi, Mahatma K. (Kher, Sunit B. ed.), The Law and Lawyers (Ahmedabad: Navjivan Trust, 2009), 235–37.Google Scholar

57. Memorandum of Meeting with Dominion High Commissioners, (January 6, 1944, “Privy Council: Conditions for Appointments of Indians, to,” IOR/L/PJ/8/115.

58. Leo Amery to Lord Wavell, January 6, 1944, “Privy Council: Conditions for Appointments of Indians, to,” IOR/L/PJ/8/115.

59. Banerjee, Sukanya, Becoming Iimperial Citizens: Indians in the Late-Victorian Empire. (Durham: Duke University Press Books, 2010)Google Scholar; Mongia, Radhika V, “Race, Nationality, Mobility: A History of the Passport,” Public Culture 11 (1999): 527–56Google Scholar; on Canada, see Mawani, Renisa, “Specters of Indigeneity in British-Indian Migration, 1914,” Law & Society Review 46, (2012): 369–403Google Scholar. On South Africa, see Huttenback, Robert A., “Indians in South Africa, 1860–1914: The British Imperial Philosophy on Trial,” The English Historical Review 81 (1966): 273–91.Google Scholar

60. The Scotsman, October 3, 1930, in Keith, Arthur Berriedale, Letters on Imperial Relations, Indian Reform, Constitutional and International Law, 1916–1935 (London: Oxford University Press, 1935), 99Google Scholar. The status of Indians in South Africa had been a cause of debate and agitation for decades, involving notably Mahatma Gandhi. See Huttenback, RobertGandhi in South Africa; British Imperialism and the Indian Question, 1860–1914 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; and Majumdar, Bijita, “Citizen or Subject? Blurring Boundaries, Claiming Space: Indians in Colonial South Africa,” Journal of Historical Sociology 26 (2013): 479–502.Google Scholar

61. The decade from the 1945 to 1955 saw the Indian government raising the question of the treatment of Indians in South Africa in several international bodies and were able to move successfully move sanctions against it in the General Assembly. See, Lloyd, L. “'A Most Auspicious Beginning': The 1946 United Nations General Assembly and the Question of the Treatment of Indians in South Africa,” Review of International Studies, 16 (1990): 131–53.Google Scholar

62. Singh, Anita Inder. “Keeping India in the Commonwealth: British Political and Military Aims, 1947–49,” Journal of Contemporary History 20 (1985): 469–81.Google Scholar

63. Corespondence with P.V. Subbarro, May 3, 1949, IOR/L/PJ/3711.

64. Chatterjee, Partha, The National and Its Fragments (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993), 33.Google Scholar

65. Kolsky, Elizabeth, Colonial Justice in British India: White Violence and the Rule of Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Bailkin, Jordanna, “The Boot and the Spleen: When was Murder Possible In British India?” Comparative Studies in Society and History 48 (2006): 462–93.Google Scholar

66. Hirschman, Edwin, “White Munity”: The Ilbert Bill Crisis in India and the Genesis of the Indian National Congress (London: Heritage, 1980).Google Scholar

67. Rohit De “The Federal Court and Civil Liberties in Late Colonial India” in T. Halliday, L. Karpik, M. Feeley (eds.) Fates of Political Liberalism in the British Post-Colony: The Politics of the Legal Complex (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) pp. 59–90

68. Cocks, Raymond, “‘Sustaining the Character of a Judge’: Conflict within the Legal Thought of British India,” The Journal of Legal History 35 (2014): 44–67.Google Scholar

69. Personal and Secret Letter from Sir Kenneth Kemp to Sir David Monteath, January 12, 1944, “Privy Council: Conditions for Appointments of Indians, to” IOR/L/PJ/8/115.

70. Memorandum from Viscount Simon to Leo Amery, secretary of state for India on the Proposed Enlargement of the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Federal Court, August 29, 1941, IOR: L/PJ/8/458/321. In 1929, Lord Simon had chaired the controversial Commission for India's Constitution.

71. Sir George Coldstreamt to Sir Kemp, January 17, 1946, “Privy Council: Conditions for Appointments of Indians, to,” IOR/L/PJ/8/115.

72. Gour, Hari Singh, “The Privy Council and After,” All India Reporter Journal (1928): 3–34Google Scholar. The majority of Indian appeals to the Privy Council were in routine civil and criminal cases. There were only a handful of politically charged cases that went up on appeal to the JCPC and were never successful. This was also partly because of the conscious policy adopted by the Gandhi-led Congress Party to not challenge prosecutions in colonial courts.

73. Report of Committee Appointed by All Parties Conference, 1928 (New Delhi: Michiko and Panjnathan, reprint 1975), 113.Google Scholar

74. Article, 52 (iii), Nehru Report (1928).

75. The use of the term “equity” in Indian legal history appears in a broader sense than the strict common law conception of equity. In Mukherjee's work, equity stands in for a certain notion of fairness.

76. Mukherjee, Mithi, India in the Shadows of Empire: A Legal and Political History, 1774–1950 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

77. Haldane, Viscount, “The Work for the Empire of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,” The Cambridge Law Journal 1 (1922): 143–55.Google Scholar

78. For more on the racialized presumptions that undergirded the utilitarian criminal codes, see Skuy, David, “Macaulay and the Indian Penal Code of 1862: The Myth of the Inherent Superiority and Modernity of the English Legal System Compared to India's Legal System in the Nineteenth Century” Modern Asian Studies 32 (1998): 513–57.Google Scholar

79. Sir Rankin, George, “The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,” Cambridge Law Journal 7 (1939–41): 2–22.Google Scholar

80. Singh, Nihal, “Appeals to the Privy Council: The Position of India in Contrast to the Other Units of the Commonwealth,” Indian Review 25 (1924): 657–59.Google Scholar

81. Ibid.

82. Memorandum by Sir Maurice Gwyer, chief justice of India to Leo Amery, secretary of state for India, December 2, 1942, IOR: L/PJ/8/458/293; Memorandum by Sir Patrick Spens, chief justice of India, on the expansion of the Federal Court's Jurisdiction to the Viceroy, February 4, 1944, IOR: L/PJ/8/458/293.

83. Sir Maurice Gwyer to Lord Linlithgow, November 9, 1942, IOR/L/PO/8/98(I) L/PO/203 (I)/149.

84. Subhanand Chowdhury and Another v. Apurba Krishna Mitra and Another (1940) F.C.R. 31, 35–36.

85. The lack of nationalist political opposition to the Privy Council is worthy of comment. Sir Hari Singh Gour attributed this to a number of reasons, including the conservatism and inertia of the legal profession and the identification of ligitation by Gandhian politicians as an evil in itself. The creation of a local Federal Court would have led to greater litigation. Gour, Hari Singh, “The Privy Council and After,” Air India Reporter Journal (1928): 3–34.Google Scholar

86. De, Rohit, “The Federal Court and Civil Liberties in Late Colonial India,” in Fates of Political Liberalism in the British Post-Colony: The Politics of the Legal Complex, ed. Halliday, Terry, Karpik, Lucien and Feeley, Malcom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 59–90.Google Scholar

87. IOR/L/PJ/7/6345.

88. Gour, Hari Singh, “The Privy Council and After,” Air India Reporter Journal (1928): 3–34.Google Scholar

89. Bugga v. King Emperor, Air India Reporter 1920 P.C 28.

90. Bhagat Singh and Others v. The King Emperor, 58 Indian Appeals 169.

91. Keshav Talpade v. King Emperor, 30 AIR 1943 FC 1, King Emperor v. Benoari Lal Sharma, (1943) FCR 295; and King Emperor v. Shibnath Banerjee, (1943) FCE 96.

92. Emperor v. Sibnath Bannerjee, (1945) FCR 195 (Privy Council); and Emperor v. Benoari Lall Sharma (1943) FCR 161 (Privy Council).

93. Dal Singh v. Emperor, L.R 12 A.C. 459.

94. Sen, B., Six Decades of Law, Politics and Diplomacy (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Company, 2010), 13.Google Scholar

95. Sir George Coldstream to Sir Kemp, January 17, 1946, “Privy Council: Conditions for Appointments of Indians, to,” IOR/L/PJ/8/115.

96. Lord Birkenhead, Law Journal 63 March 19, 1927, 304.

97. Cooper, Frederick, “Possibility and Constraint: African Independence in Historical Perspective,” The Journal of African History 49 (2008): 167–96Google Scholar; Collins, Michael, “Decolonization and the ‘Federal Moment,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 24 (2013): 21–340.Google Scholar

98. Mazower, Mark, No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

99. Kumarasingham, Harshan, “The ‘Tropical Dominions’: The Appeal of Dominion Status in the Decolonization of India, Pakistan and Ceylon,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (Sixth Series) 23 (2013): 223–45.Google Scholar

100. “Report of the Informal Intern-Allied Committee on the Future of the Permanent Court of International Justice” Supplement to the American Journal of International Law 39–A (1945): 32.Google Scholar

101. “There would be a single permanent court, as at present, with a fixed number of nine judges, and one central seat. If in any case, all the parties to a suit wished the hearing to be on regional lines nad held in a particular par to the world, say the American continent, the Court would then be constituted for that particular case as follows: there would be the national judge of each of the parties; there would also be two ‘judges suppleantes’ belonging to the American states and chosen from the national judges appointed by the various governments.” Ibid, 35.

102. Bentwich (1945).

103. Katende, J.W. and Kanyeihamba, George W., “Legalism and Politics in East Africa: The Dilemma of the Court of Appeals of East Africa,” Transition 43 (1973): 43–54.Google Scholar

104. A.R Lakshmanan, 229th Report of the Law Commission of India (2009). www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report229.pdf

105. Robert Mendick and Joshi Echner Heinmann, “Britain's Top Judges– And Their Wives– Move Court to Mauritius for a Week,” The Telegraph June 26, 2010. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7855991/Britains-top-judges-and-their-wives-move-court-to-Mauritius-for-a-week.html (May 31, 2013).

106. Metcalf, Thomas, Imperial Connections: India in the Indian Ocean Arena, 1860–1920 (Ewing, NJ: University of California Press, 2007), 23–25.Google Scholar

107. Birla, Ritu, Stages of Capital: Law, Culture, and Market Governance in Late Colonial India (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

108. De, Rohit, “Mumtaz Bibi's Broken Heart: The Many Lives of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act,” Indian Economic Social History Review 46 (2009): 105–30.Google Scholar