Before October 1, 1937, the inaugural date of the Federal Court of India, neither British India nor the Indian States had experienced the jurisdiction of an indigenous, all-India judicial tribunal. In the absence of such a court, disputes between the Centre and the Provinces, between the Centre and the States, and between the Provinces and the States inter sey were decided by the Government of India.

  1. 1921-1930
    This Assembly recommends to the Governor-General in Coun-cil to be so pleased as to take early steps to establish a Court of Ultimate Appeal in India for the trial of Civil Appeals now deter-mined by the Privy Council in England and as the court of final appeal against convictions for serious offences occasioning the failure of justice.
    The most eminent critic of the proposed Supreme Court, however, was PanditThe most eminent critic of the proposed Supreme Court, however, was Pandit Motilal Nehru, who observed that in a country where the executive and the judicial functions are combined, where a controversy has been raging for years past over The separation of these two functions without any resul.
  2. 1930-1935
  3. The necessity for the establishment of a Federal Court was common ground among all members of the Committee, and such differences of opinion as manifested themselves were concerned, for the most part, with matters of detail rather than of principle. It was recognised by all that a Federal Court was required both to interpret the constitution and to safeguard it, to prevent encroach-ment by one federal organ upon the sphere of another, and to guarantee the integrity of the compact between the various federating Units out of which the Federation itself has sprung.53 Its necessity admitted, the Committee then turned to the question.doubt whether these fears are well-foundedtribunal desirable appeal to the Federal Court, on other than constitutional or Federal matters, were, in addition to limitations based on suit value, to be strictly limited…to cases where some important point of law is involved or where a divergence of opinion among Provincial or State Courts renders a judgment of the highest tribunal desirable.
  4. Finally, close scrutiny of the Minutes of Evidence and Records of the Joint Committee discloses that the British Indian representa-tives added little to what they had said previously about the structure and jurisdiction of the central judiciary. Nothing significant was said with reference to Hoare’s suggestion of a combined Federal-Supreme Court, and comment on his proposal that State and Provincial High Court decisions bearing upon the interpretation of Federal law be brought under the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court was limited largely to arguments that Hoare should have included matters pertaining to the Concurrent, as well as Federal List.90 The deliberations of the Joint Committee culminated in the pub-lishing in November, 1934, of the Report of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform*1The Report indicates general acceptance by the Committee of the White Paper scheme, as modified by Sir Samuel Hoare’s memorandum. That is, the Joint Committee recommended that if the Federal Legislature decided to establish a courFederalp or British India, “this would most conveniently be effected by an extension of the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. It was alJoi recommended to Parliament that the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court be extended to include the interpretation by State and Provincial High Courts of Federal laws for, in the opinion of the Joint
  5. However, after taking note of the concern of the Princes over further derogations from their sovereignty, the Joint Committee felt compelled to emphasize that the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court, so far as regards an Indian State, arises from the voluntary act of the ruler himself, viz., his accession to the Federation; the jurisdiction is in no sense imposed on him ab extra. This being so, and since it is proposed that all appeals to the Federal Court should be in the form of a Special Case to be stated by the Court appealed from, we think the position of the States would be appropriately safeguarded if it were provided that the granting of leave to appeal by the Federal Court were in the form of Letters of Request, directed to the Ruler of the State to be transmitted by him to the Court concerned.

It is clear that the Federal Court provided for in the Government of India Act, 1935 fell far short of the demands of Sir Hari Singh Gour and others who had long sought the creation of a central judicial tribunal. The Federal Court was neither a court of criminal appeal, nor in any sense the forum for the final disposition of Indian appeals. Not only were British Indian High Court decisions still appealable to the Privy Council, but, instead of in any way reducing the number of such appeals, the 1935 Act actually extended the juris-diction of the Privy Council by providing that decisions handed down by the Federal Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction were subject to appeal to the Privy Council. The proponents of a Supreme Court were able to secure only a provision investing the Federal Legislature with power to transfer to the Federal Court the appellate functions of the Judicial Committee at some future date.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.


Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.