Page:Hyderabad in 1890 and 1891; comprising all the letters on Hyderabad affairs written to the Madras Hindu by its Hyderabad correspondent during 1890 and 1891 (IA hyderabadin1890100bangrich).pdf/96

 HYDERABAD, 21st March 1891.

This morning's "Deccan Times" has a very sensible leader commenting upon the order recently passed by His Excellency, the Minister, revoking the license granted to Mr. A. C. Rudra, Barrister-at-law, to practice in the Courts of His Highness the Nizam for "offensive remarks" made by him regarding the Judges of the High Court in connection with Gallagher versus Gribble. "The case of Mr. Rudra" is very clearly set forth, and the great injustice, or rather the unheard-of severity of the order, is dealt with in no spiteful or captious spirit. The remarks which have cost Mr. Rudra his sunnudh allude to the Government of Hyderabad being a personal one, to Judges being more or less all partisans of the Government, and to justice being a toss-up in Hyderabad. That the Hyderabad Government is a personal one, even the most scrupulous of official proteges and apologists cannot and dare not deny; and the partisanship, i.e., the thoroughly subservient character of the Judges, is put beyond a possibility of doubt by the fact that the High Court did not take any notice of the so-called offensive remarks until called upon more than once by the Government to do so. Who can gainsay then that justice is a toss-up here? A statement of these facts made when uncalled for would certainly constitute an unpardonable offense. But in the circumstances in which it was made by Mr. Rudra, it was privileged. His client, Mr. Gribble, stood charged with unprofessional and dishonorable conduct; and to have refrained from mentioning well-known facts calculated to disprove the charge would have been dereliction of duty. That the Judges should have failed to take all this into account and "unanimously resolved" to strike Mr. Rudra's name off the rolls of the advocates of the High Court is passing strange—if it does not point to partizanship.

I have not done with Mr. Ekbal Ali yet. Some more light has been thrown upon his so-called recall from the North-Western Provinces, and I shall not like to hide it under a bushel. If what I hear is true—and there is no earthly reason for doubting

page 88