Law and Lawyers: Dasappa's case, the Lahore judgment and the Punjab cases

1. Shri Dasappa’s case (chapters 36 and 37, Harijan, 13 July 1940)

Facts. Shri H. C. Dasappa, a respected Mysore advocate of twenty years’ standing and President of the Mysore Congress, was struck off the rolls by the Mysore Chief Court on two charges: (1) he had disobeyed the Kolar District Magistrate’s order not to address meetings in a certain area; and (2), treated by the Chief Judge as more serious, he had advised Congressmen, on Gandhi’s advice, not to take part in a departmental inquiry by Justice A. R. Nageswara Iyer into the Congress’s allegations of police torture, because the inquiry was not open to press or public and not impartial.

The Chief Judge’s view. To make a foul allegation and refuse either to withdraw or substantiate it showed a want of fairness; no man fit to be an advocate could submit his conscience to a person outside the State; by this “defect of character” he was unfit to remain an advocate.

Gandhi’s comment. Dasappa was a man of spotless character. Bhulabhai Desai, K. M. Munshi and Rajagopalachari had defied laws and were not disbarred; two had been Ministers. The order was “a cool and calculated attack on the honour of a man who could not defend himself”, worse than the Punjab martial-law judgments, because there had been no panic or violence in Mysore. Dasappa would rise in public esteem; the judges had suffered. He urged the disbarred lawyers to be proud of their poverty, recalling Thoreau that under an unjust administration riches are a crime and poverty a virtue.

2. The Lahore judgment (chapter 40, Young India, 23 July 1919)

Facts. After the Rowlatt Act agitation of 1919, a Special Tribunal convicted Lala Harkishan Lal, Chaudhary Rambhaj Dutt, Duni Chand and two others under section 121 IPC (waging war against the King) and sentenced them to transportation for life and forfeiture, the lowest sentence the section allowed. Their acts were organising the hartal, opening free kitchens (langarkhanas) and holding meetings.

Gandhi’s objections. Hartal without force is the inherent right of a grieved people; “when merit becomes a crime, it is a sacred duty to commit that crime.” To call a powerful agitation against an odious law “waging war” is “a descent to the ludicrous”. The accused were not shown to have encouraged any violence. The judgment was tinged with political bias and brushed aside their record of loyalty. He added his general view: British justice is “an expensive luxury”, often “the longest purse that wins”; “Agree with thine adversary quickly” is the soundest legal maxim. The public’s duty: quiet, persistent, non-violent agitation for repeal of the Rowlatt Act and reversal of the sentences.

3. Jagannath’s case (chapter 41, Young India, 30 July 1919)

Jagannath, a petty shopkeeper of Gujranwala with no education and no part in politics, was sentenced by a martial-law tribunal to transportation for life under section 121. The court found he had got notices printed for the meeting of 5 April and was present at meetings on 12 and 13 April. Gandhi’s points: the 5 April meeting was no crime, as the judges themselves held no conspiracy existed before 12 April; there was no finding that he joined the agreement to burn bridges and cut wires; and his alibi, that he left by the 5 p.m. train on 12 April for a case in Kathiawad and was at Dhoraji on 16 April, was proved by witnesses, the Foujdar’s register, Jetpur court records and railway timetables. Worst of all, the court granted a commission to examine his Kathiawad witnesses, charged him Rs. 250 for it, and then gave judgment without waiting for its return. That alone made the conviction illegal.

4. Lala Labhu Ram (chapter 45, Young India, 10 September 1919)

A Glasgow-trained civil engineer from a loyal Lahore family, formerly State Engineer in Poonch, with no political connections, he was convicted of joining a crowd of a hundred in assaulting a police officer on 12 April 1919 and sentenced to transportation, later commuted to fourteen years. Gandhi’s points: he was arrested eight days later; his name was not in the police diary; no witness knew him before; six of eleven prosecution witnesses said nothing about him and the identifiers were police employees; and two doctors testified that he was with them attending his sick son at the time. The court began its judgment with “The evidence for the defence is worthless.” Gandhi refused to welcome the commutation: if innocent he should be freed, not shown mercy.

5. Gujaratimal’s case (chapter 46, Young India, 13 September 1919)

An eighteen-year-old military dresser, home on leave from service in Egypt, was sentenced to death (later commuted to transportation and then, his father heard, to seven years' rigorous imprisonment) as the principal speaker and one of the assailants in the April disturbances; he had been at his village near Hafizabad since 8 April getting his shop repaired. He was arrested two days after the event. At an identification parade five weeks later none of the prosecution witnesses who later deposed against him, nor Lieutenant Tatam, could identify him; Tatam even pointed out the Tehsildar as an assailant. Witnesses contradicted each other on who made the speech. Gandhi asked for a searching inquiry and for reasons to be given to the father whose petitions had been rejected.

6. Fining the labourers (chapter 50, Young India, 4 October 1919)

After the April 1919 disturbances, Ahmedabad was fined nearly nine lakh rupees under the Police Act; Rs. 1,76,000 of it was to be recovered from the mill-hands, by attaching one week’s wages from the caution money held by the mill-owners. Gandhi’s objections: a law that lets Government impose penalties without a judicial tribunal is bad; the fine fell on all mill-hands employed in September, including newcomers, women and children who had nothing to do with April; the order was not served on the workers, who lost their right of appeal; the money was taken without notice or consent, “almost like collecting fine from owners of cattle for trespass”; and it fell in a festival season. He asked that the sum be reduced, women and boys exempted and payment taken in instalments.

How this is examined

“Explain any two: Lawyer’s duty, Dasappa’s case, Fining the labourers” (June 2025); “Shri Dasappa’s case; The Lahore Judgement” (January 2026, 100 marks); “Lala Laburam’s case, Fining the labourers, Jagannath’s case” (October 2023); “What is the significance of Gujaratimal’s case?” (June 2025, 100 marks). Write facts, objection and conclusion in about half a page each. “Lawyer’s duty” is covered in the note on Parsi Rustomji and Gandhi’s legal philosophy.