Page:White Paper on Indian States (1950).pdf/127

 229. If in the generality of cases, the decree of the Ruler was law, in a number of cases the Ruler not only constituted the source of justice but also personally administered it in actual practice. For a large number of States, owing to their slender resources, an organised judiciary was a luxury, which they could not afford. Thus for instance, if the Ruler of a State with a population of little more than 600 individuals and an annual income of less than Rs. 2,000 enjoyed full judicial powers, subject only to confirmation of capital sentences by the Resident and, in consequence, concentrated in himself all original, appellate and revisional jurisdiction over his subjects, the system which sustained such an untenable set-up, rather than the Ruler concerned, was at fault.

230. The Crown itself developed several forms of jurisdiction in States resting on various foundations. Apart from claiming exclusive jurisdiction over certain classes such as European British subjects, and certain territories such as cantonments, residencies, railway lands, etc., the Crown shared the jurisdiction in certain States. A notable instance of such arrangements was the judicial organisation in the Kathiawar peninsula where political officers exercised a wide civil and criminal residuary jurisdiction. In other States such as the Central India and Simla Hill States, jurisdiction could be exercised by the Rulers but a sentence of death or imprisonment for life could be executed only after the sentence had been confirmed by the local political officer. The jurisdiction of the Crown over States was recognised and its exercise in some measure regulated by the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts of 1879 and 1890.

231. Only the more important and progressive States had judicial organisations approximating to the judiciary in the Provinces. Even in these States, there was considerable scope for improvement in the direction both of the conditions of service of the judges and of the independence of judiciary from the control of the executive. The judges were appointed by the Ruler and were removable at his pleasure. His executive officers were not amenable to the Courts for their public acts. In some States, the Minister holding the portfolio of Law also acted as Chief Justice; in other States he constituted the highest appellate authority. A number of States had some kind of judicial Committees to advise the Rulers in the exercise of their prerogative.  

232. The scheme embodied in the Act of 1935 made little advance in the direction of the unification of the judicial systems of States. The jurisdiction which the Act conferred on the Federal Court in respect of