A History of India, Third Edition

THE PERIOD OF COLONIAL RULE

have sometimes made too much of these high-level transactions. The
Government of India was dominated by the civil servants who spent their
whole career in India. Parliament did not take much interest in the
subcontinent. In fact, even this interest declined after India had come under
direct British rule. As long as the charter of the East India Company had to
be renewed by Parliament at regular intervals, there was an occasion for
reviewing everything concerning India in great debates; since this was no
longer required, debates on India were few and far between and were mostly
conducted by a few specialists who addressed empty benches.
Parliamentarians are, after all, most vitally affected by everything concerning
the taxpayer’s money. The Indian taxpayer was not represented in
Parliament and thus the secretary of state was rarely asked any serious
questions concerning his management of the tribute exacted from India.

Legislation, jurisdiction and administration

Since India was not represented in Parliament there was a need for an
Indian legislature after the rule of the East India Company was terminated.
In the days of the company the governor general had simply settled all
issues by means of regulations. This kind of legislation by the executive
was rough and ready and did not quite correspond to the standards of
modern jurisprudence. This is why a law member was added to the
governor general’s council in 1835. Lord Macaulay, and the other law
members who succeeded him, did a great deal for the codification and
technical perfection of British law as applied to India—but, of course, a
law member was no substitute for a legislature.
Such a legislature was established in 1861. Its members were nominated
by the governor general, the majority were British civil servants, although a
few Indian notables were also included so as to get the benefit of native
opinion. Actually, this Imperial Legislative Council just provided a
convenient alibi for the executive, which could get passed any law it thought
it needed for its purposes. Three independent High Courts in Bombay,
Calcutta and Madras had also been established in 1861. The benches of
these courts were occupied by highly qualified judges, and Indian judges
were also appointed to them. As judges who, in the British tradition,
preferred judge-made law based on precedent to the hastily contrived acts of
a legislature, these legal luminaries were often at loggerheads with the
Imperial Legislative Council and many acts had to be amended after their
inconsistencies were exposed in a leading case. The British administrators
were not discouraged by judicial criticism and built up an imposing edifice
of legislation in India. Some of the acts of the Imperial Legislative Council
were even exported to British colonies abroad.
One important line of this legislative work was the enactment of
statutes embodying codes of law and unifying legal procedure. Such were