4
AND THE LORD SAID UNTO—
Reports of Cases Argued and Determined Before
The Lords Of the Privy Council, 1829-31
By Jerome Wm. Knapp, Barrister-At-Law, Vol. I.
[A note Contributed by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar ]
The case In re justices of the Supreme Court of Judicature, which is reprinted below was decided on the 14th of May
- It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that the case is of antiquarian interest merely because it is 107 years old. The case is not only of interest to students of History but it is also of interest to students of Law and to the general public as well. Students of History know the jealousy and the hatred that subsisted between the Officers of the East India Company and the Officers of the crown during the period of Double Government that preceded the Mutiny. The reader of the Memoirs of Sir Edward West will recall how a Governor appointed by the East India Company contrived to have a duel with a Judge of the Supreme Court appointed by the King. To the student of History the case is of interest because it illustrates the length to which this jealousy and hatred between the officers of the Company and the officers of the King had gone in those old days. To the student of Law the case though old is of great and present-day importance. The issue raised in the case was whether the Supreme Court established in Bombay had a right to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus against a person not residing within its original local Jurisdiction. That the decision had relation to the powers of the Supreme Court which has ceased to exist does not lessen the importance of the case to the student of present day Law because although the Supreme Court has ceased to exist the power of the present High Court to issue the writ of Habeas Corpus, outside its original local Jurisdiction is a question which can be answered only by reference to the powers which once belonged to the Supreme Court. This is so because according to the Letters Patent the High