WOULD,
THE “GADI” [THRONE] OF CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ, THE GREAT MARATHA EMPEROR,
HONOURED BY CONSTITUTING HIGH COURT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR?
I] HISTORY OF
PRINCELY STATES
[THRONE
OF CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ, THE
GREAT
EMPEROR OF MARATHA]
II] POLITICAL
INTEGRATION OF PRINCELY STATES IN UNION OF INDIA
Princely
state was nominally sovereign entity during the British Raj. Princely states were not directly governed by
British, but by an Indian ruler subject to suzerainty or paramountcy or the
British crown.
Colonial
India had different imperial entities such as Dutch India, Danish India, French
India, Portuguese India, East-India Company & British India.
Officially
there were 556 princely states in India at the time of Independence of India
i.e. in the year 1947.
The
gun salute was used to set the precedence of the rulers of the princely
states. Rulers of princely states were
entitled to be saluted by firing of guns between 3 to 21 guns fires. Salute by 21 guns was indicating greater prestige
of the Ruler. Amongst above stated
princely states about 120 princely states were known as salute states.
As
paramount ruler and the successor to Mughals, “The British King Emperor of
India” was entitled to imperial 101 guns salute as per the European tradition.
Nizam
of Hyderabad, the Maharaja of Mysore, the Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir
state, the Maharaja of Baroda and the Maharaja of Gwalior were entitled to 21
guns salute.
The
Navab of Bhopal, the Maharaja of Indore, the Maharana of Udaipur, the Maharaja of Kolhapur and the Maharaja of
Travancore were entitled
to 19 guns salute.
The
other princely rulers were entitled to salutes of lesser guns salute, such as
11 guns, 9 guns salute, etc. At the time of independence, India was divided
into two sets of territories, first was the territory of British India and
second was territories of princely states.
On the commencement of the Indian
Independence Act, 1947, British paramountcy lapsed and the Indian princely
states became completely sovereign & independent. They were free to accede to either of the 2
dominions of India or Pakistan, or to remain independent. The Govt.of India Act, 1935 was adopted under
the Indian Independence Act, 1947. Under
Sec.5 of the Government of India Act, 1935, instruments of “Accession” were executed.
Before
execution theoretically though the rulers became independent, in actual fact
almost all the rulers signed instruments of accession in August, 1947,
surrendering Defence, External affairs and Communication.
Mr.V.P.Menon,
Constitutional Adviser to the Governor General till 1947, who was closely
connected with the annexation of the princely states. During said process he
said: There was nothing to compel or induce the rulers to merge the entity of
their states. In a speech of Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel made on 12th Oct.1949 in the constituent Assembly
on
the
Draft Constitution said:
Rulers
of princely states were offered as “quid pro quo” for parting with their
ruling powers, was the guarantee to them of privy purses and certain
privileges. The total amount of Privy Purse was about Rs.5.8 crore per annum. The
Privy Purse settlements are, therefore, in the nature of consideration for the
surrender by the rulers of their ruling powers and also for the dissolution of
the states as separate units. We are
ourselves honouring the commitments of the British Government in respect of the
persons of those rulers who helped them in consolidating their empire.
Need
we cavil then at the small purposely used word “Small Price” we have paid for
the bloodless revolution which has affected the destinies of millions of our
people.
Justice
to them;
Let us place ourselves in their position
and then assess the value of their sacrifice. The rulers have now discharged their part of
the obligations by transferring of ruling powers and by granting to the
integration of their states. The main
part of our obligations under these agreements is, to ensure that the
guarantees given by us in respect of Privy Purse and the Rights, Titles, privileges
and Dignities of rulers of are fully fulfilled. India states in the exercise of
the powers of parliament
or
the legislature of a state to make Laws or in the exercise of the executive
power of the union or of a state, due regards shall be had to the guarantee or
assurance given under any such covenant or agreement with respect to the
personal rights titles, privileges and dignities of the rulers as an Indian
state, failure to do would be a breach of faith.
III] PRINCELY STAE OF KOLHAPUR
The
princely state of Kolhapur was one of the 19 guns salute states of
India. The Bhonsale dynasty was the ruling family of
the state. The courts of the princely
state exercised full civil & criminal jurisdiction. It has its own mint and own currency but it
seized in the year 1839. The traditional title of the ruler,
originally used of Shivaji the great, was “CHHATRAPATI”. The Maharaja
of Kolhapur Princely state was descendant of Chhatrapati Shivaji the great. The princely state of Kolhapur was founded in
the year 1710 during the civil war between the senior branch and the junior
branch of the family. The treatise was
arrived at between the senior branch and the junior branch of the family in the
year 1731. Such as two princely states
viz. Satara & Kolhapur, through the said treaty, known as “Treaty of Warna”,
came into existence.
In
the year 1812 after the Maratha confederacy collapsed, the princely state
Kolhapur entered into treaty relations with the British East-India
company. The last ruler of princely
state of Kolhapur was His Highness Maharaja Chhatrapati Shahaji-II who acceded
to the newly formed “Union of India” on 14th August, 1947, which was
later on 1st March 1949 merged with the Bombay state.
The
instrument of accession was an officially authorised document
Which
was created in the year 1947. The
princely states were under direct “British Rule”, they were omitted from being
partitioned by British Government of India.
According to the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the “Suzerainty” of the
British crown over the Indian princely states would simply be terminated w.e.f.
15th August, 1947. This would render the various princely states as totally
independent and autonomous.
After the independence of
India from the British dominion, it was then a matter for princely states to
decide whether to accede to India, to accede to Pakistan or to remain outside
both. The process of accession was executed
by the Government of India and each of the princely states.
IV] THE GENEOLOGY TREE OF KOLHAPUR
(PRINCELY STATE):
Chhatrapati
Shivaji Maharaj: Dynasty – Babaji, Maloji, Shahaji, Shivaji, Sambhaji, Rajaram,
Tarabai (1700-1708)
Hereafter
ancestors of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj were divided in two branches viz.
Satara and Kolhapur. The dynasty of
Kolhapur branch is as under:
Rulers of princely
state of Kolhapur
·
Shivaji-I
(1710-2nd August 1714)
·
Shambhuji
(2nd Aug’ 1714-20th Dec’ 1760)
·
Rani
Jiji Bai served as Regent
(20th Dec’1760- 17th
Feb’1773)
·
Shivaji-II(22nd
Sept.1762-24th Apr’ 1813)
·
Shambhuji-III
(14th Apr.1813-2nd July 1821)
·
Shivaji-III
(2nd July 1821-3rd Jan’1822)
·
Shahaji
(2nd July 1821-3rd Jan’ 1822)
·
Shahaji-I
(3rd Jan’ 1822-29th Nov’1838)
·
Shivaji-IV
(29th Nov’1838-4th Aug’1866)
·
Rani
Sai Bai served as Regent
(29th Nov’1838- 1845)
·
Rajaram-I
(4th Aug’ 1866-30th Nov’1870)
·
Rani
Tarabai served as Regent
(30th Nov’1870-12th
Oct’1871)
·
Shivaji-V
(12th Oct’1871-25th Dec’1883)
·
Rani
Anandi Bai served as Regent
(25th Dec’1883-17th
Mar’1884)
·
Shahaji-II
(17th Mar’1884-24th May 1900)
⃰⃰ Jaisinghrao Ghatge served as Regent
(17th Mar’1884-20th
Mar’1885)
·
Rajaram-IIChhatrapati(31July1897-26Nov’1940)
·
Tarabai
served as Regent
(26th Nov’1940-18th
Nov’1942)
·
Shivaji-IVChhatrapati(18Nov’1942-28Sept’1946)
·
Tarabai
served as Regent
(22nd Nov’1942-31st
March’1947)
·
Shahaji-IIIChatrapati(31Mar’1947-15Aug.1947)
·
Shahu-IIChhatrapati(1983-Shahu-II
Chhatrapati b.1948 – Present)
The
princely state Kolhapur enacted its own Laws. Since 31.05.1931, princely state Kolhapur had its own
High Court & Supreme Court.
Judicial
luminaries like Hon’ble Shri P.B. Gajendragadkar (Ex. Chief Justice of India),
Bharat Bhushan Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar, Mohammad Ali Jinnah made their
appearances before High Court & Supreme Court at Princely state of Kolhapur
and shared their contributions.
HIGH COURT STAFF KOLHAPUR
22ND
FEBUARY 1946
RARE
PHOTOGRAPH OF HIGH COURT STAFF KOLHAPUR TAKEN ON 22ND
FEB.1946.SEEN, IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, BACK SIDE 2ND ROW[STANDING] , 1ST
FROM LEFT, IS SEEN LATE MR. DATTATRAY BABAJI KUIGADE,[THEN RECORD
KEEPER AND FATHER OF ADVOCATE MR. ASHOKRAO DATTATRY KUIGADE,KOLHAPUR,
AND GRAND FATHER OF ADVOCATES MR. VISHWAJEET MAHOHAR KUIGADE, ADVOCATE
UDAYSINHA BHIMRAO JADHAV AND ADVOCTE UMESHCHANDRA TUKARM YADAV,KOLHAPUR.
In
the year 1944, princely state Kolhapur had its own Assembly, to which people’s
representatives were elected.
V] SHORT
HISTORY REGARDING CONSTITUTION OF AURANGABAD BENCH OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
·
Due to continued demand of the people of
Marathwada region for
establishment
of a permanent bench of the High Court at Aurangabad under Sub-sec.(2) of
Sec.151 of The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act XXXVII of 1956) [Hereinafter
referred as to Act for the sake of brevity], the State Legislative Assembly
passed an unanimous Resolution supporting a demand for the establishment of a
permanent bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad which reads as under :
“With a view to save huge expenses and
to reduce the inconvenience of the people of Marathwada & Pune regions in
connection with legal proceedings, this Assembly recommends to the Government
to make a request to the President to establish a permanent bench of the Bombay
High Court having jurisdiction in Marathwada &Pune regions one at
Aurangabad and the other at Pune”.
·
The said demand for constitution of a
permanent bench of the High Court at Aurangabad was supported by the State Bar
Council of Maharashtra, Advocates’ Association of Western India, several Bar
Associations & people in general.
·
The Resolution as rightful move made a
demand for the setting of a permanent bench of the High Court of Bombay at
Aurangabad for the Marathwada region and there was no reference to Pune, which
was added by way of amendment.
·
Initially, the State Government made a
recommendation to the Central Government in 1978 for the establishment Two
permanent benches under sub-sec(2) of Sec.51 of the Act, one at Aurangabad and
the other at Pune, but later in 1981 confined its recommendation to Aurangabad
bench alone.
·
Thereafter the Government took a cabinet
decision in January 1981, to establish a permanent bench of the High Court at
Aurangabad. This was conveyed by the
Secretary to the Govt. of Maharashtra, Law & Judiciary Department,
communicated by his letter dated February 3, 1981 to the Registrar and he was
requested that with the permission of
·
the Chief Justice to submit proposals
regarding accommodation for the Court and residential bungalows for the Judges,
staff, furniture, etc. necessary for setting up the Bench.
·
As a result of this communication, the
Chief Justice wrote to the Chief Minister on February 26, 1981 signifying its
consent to the establishment of permanent bench at Aurangabad.
·
It however became evident by the middle
of June 1981 that the Central Government would take time in reaching a decision
on the proposal for the establishment of a permanent bench under Sub-sec (2)
·
of Sec.51 of the Act at Aurangabad, as a
question involved a much larger issue, regarding viz. the principles to be
adopted and the criteria laid down for the establishment of permanent benches
of High Courts generally. This meant
that there would be inevitable delay in securing concurrence of the Central
Government and the issuance of a presidential notification under Sub-sec. (2)
of Sec.51 of the Act.
·
On
June 19, 1981, the State Government accordingly took a Cabinet decision that
pending the establishment of a permanent bench under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.51 of
the Act at Aurangabad for the Marathwada region resort be had to the provisions
of Sub-sec.(3) thereof.
·
On
June 20, 1981, Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Law & Judiciary
Department wrote to the Registrar stating that there was a possibility of delay
in securing concurrence of the Central Government and issuance of a
notification by the President under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.51 of the Act for the
establishment of a permanent bench at Aurangabad and in order to tide over the
difficulty, the provisions of Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.51 of the
·
Act
may be resorted to and he therefore requested the Chief Justice to favour the
Government with his views in the matter at an early date.
·
On July 7, 1981, the Chief Justice wrote
a letter to the Chief Minister in which he stated that the Law Secretary had
conveyed to him the decision of the State Government to have a “Circuit
Bench” at Aurangabad under Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.51 pending the decision of
the Central Government to establish permanent bench. The Chief Justice then added :
“I agree that some such a state is necessary in view of
the proposition made by the Government at huge costs and the mounting
expectations of the people there”.
·
On July 20, 1981 the Law Secretary
addressed a letter to the Registrar requesting him to forward, with the
permission of the Chief Justice, proposal as required under Sub-sec.(3) of
Sec.51 for setting up a bench at Aurangabad.
·
In reply to the same, the Registrar by
his letter dated July 24, 1981 conveyed that the Chief Justice agreed with the
suggestion of the State Government that action had to be taken under Sub-sec.
(3) of Sec.51 of
·
the Act, for which approval of the
Governor was necessary and he enclosed a copy of the draft order which the
Chief Justice proposed to issue under Sub-sec.3 of Sec.51 of the Act.
·
On August 10, 1981 the Law Secretary
conveyed to the Registrar the approval of the Governor.
·
On August 27, 1981, the Chief Justice issued an order under Sub-sec.3
of Sec.51 of the Act to the effect :
“In
exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sec. (3) of Sec.51 of the State
Reorganisation Act, 1956 (No.37 of 1956) and all other powers enabling him in
this behalf, the Hon’ble Chief Justice with the approval of the Government of
Maharashtra is pleased to
appoint Aurangabad as a place at which
the Hon’ble Judges and Division Courts of the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay may also sit”
This
is the history of the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court.
VI] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
[LAW COMMISSION OF
INDIA]
REFORMS IN THE
JUDICIARY
SOME SUGGESTIONS
[REPORT
NO.230]
5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2009
INCREASE
IN NO.OF JUDGES & CREATION OF NEW BENCHES
Law
Commission of India (Report No.230) consists of the Chairman, Hon’ble Dr.Justice
A.R.Laxmanan, the Member Secretary, one full time Member and 7 part time Members. Its recommendations are:
INCREASE
IN NO.OF JUDGES & CREATION OF NEW BENCHES
1.8 It is also necessary that the work of the
High Courts is decentralised, i.e. more benches are established in all
states. If there is manifold increase in
the strength of Judges and the staff, all cannot be housed in one campus. Therefore, the establishment of new benches
is necessary. It is also in the interest
of litigants. The benches should be so established that,
a litigant is not required to travel long.
1.9 It is true that the new establishments will
require money, but it is necessary as a development measure, particularly, when
efforts are being
Made
for all round development of the country.
Therefore, the money should not be a problem. We have to watch & protect the interest
of the litigants. We must always keep in
mind that the existence of Judges &
Advocates is because of the litigants and they are there to serve their cause
only.
1.10 Some times, some Advocates object to creation
of new benches and selection of new sites for construction of new buildings, but they raise objections in their
personal limited interest, creation of new benches is certainly
beneficial for the litigants and the Lawyers and the begin has to be made
somewhere.
1.11 There is a huge pendency of cases in the Apex
court also. Now the demand has come not
only for the strength of the Hon’ble Judges in the Supreme Court should be
increased and recommendations are made to fill up the vacancies soon, but new
benches be also established in Southern & Eastern regions.
VII] SPEECH OF HON’BLE PRIME-MINISTER OF INDIA AT THE 150th
ANNIVERSARY CELEBRA-TIONS OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT:
“Hon’ble Prime-Minister Dr.Manmohan
Singh addressed on the need to deliver timely justice and said, the UPA
Government was committed to working with the judiciary to bring about the
improvements in the country’s justice delivery system. Dr.Manmohan Singh noted that the number of
initiatives & reforms had been instituted for the said purpose and cited
the National mission for justice delivery and legal reforms that was launched
to achieve the twin objective of increasing access by reducing delays &
arrears, and enhance accountability.
Speaking on the glorious tradition of
the Bombay High Court in enriching the Indian Legal System the Hon’ble
Prime-Minister said it was “remarkable” that the first Chief Justice, the
Attorney General and Solicitor General of Independent India were from this
court. Since 1947, 22 Judges from the
Bombay High Court have been elevated to the Apex court and as many as 8 of them
have adorned the office of Chief Justice of India.
VIII] C O N C L U S I O N
In case of Raghunathrao Ganpatrao
(Co-Ruler of an Ex. Indian State of Kurundwad) V/s Union of India, reported in
1993 AIR 1267, it is observed that-
“On 26th amendment
pertaining to abolition of Privy Purse, which was impugned in the said case, is
the will of people expressed through parliament”.
The object behind writing this Article was
to invite the attention of the concerned empowered to establish a permanent
bench of Bombay High Court at Kolhapur for six districts viz. Kolhapur, Sangli,
Satara, Solapur, Sindhudurg & Ratnagiri by way of “Final
Relief” and also for constituting “Circuit
Bench” of Bombay High Court at Kolhapur, as an “interim measure”, by resorting
powers under sub.sec.3 of Sec.51 of the Act.
That
the brief history for the demand of establishment of High Court Bench of Bombay
High Court at Kolhapur:
That the litigants, the citizens from the six
districts [i.e. Kolhapur, Sangli, Satara, Solapur, Sindhudurg & Ratnagiri]
and the members of the District Bar Associations of the said districts, the
labours,
the
Agriculturists, the Zilla Parishad, Municipal Corporations, Nagar Panchayat,
Gram Panchayat, Chambers of Commerce and such other entities have made a demand
of establishment of permanent Bench of Bombay High Court at Kolhapur. The said demand is pending for last 25
years. Present “Rajmata” and “Maharaja” of princely state Satara and Kolhapur
have supported the said Demand. When the princely State Kolhapur had not
merged in the Union of India, it had its own Legislative Council; it had its
own High Court & Supreme Court.
Taking into consideration the dynasty as stated hereinabove, THE PRINCELY STATE KOLHAPUR IS A
“GADI”
HEREDITARORILY CAME FROM THE CHHATRAPATI
SHIVAJI MAHARAJA, THE GREAT MARATHA EMPEROR.
It
is the demand of the people of said princely states.
Now the questions arise that:
While
executing the covenants & agreements, the solemn guarantees &
assurances had been given by the then Rulers to the Chiefs of the princely
states regarding privy purses and maintaining their rights, titles, privileges
and dignity.
The
term Maintaining of Dignity is quite
wide. “It, in the case of Chief’s of
Princely States, covers restoration of High Court which was then
in existence when the princely state Kolhapur had not merged in Union of
India.
[Note: Till 1970 some Princely States were in existence in
‘Pakistan’]
The power to concede and
grant the demand of the people from six districts vests with the State &
Central Government. In democratic
system, the constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and all organs of the
Government – Legislative, Executive & Judiciary derive their powers and
authority from the constitutions. It may
be said that moral obligations cast upon the Rulers accepted by them at the
time of executing the covenants and the agreements with the then princely
states.
The
Government consists of Law makers i.e. Legislative Body and the Executives and
the judiciary. So the Pious obligations accepted by the then Government of Union
of India casts upon judiciary also.
As far as the
issue regarding establishment of regular permanent bench of Bombay High Court
at Kolhapur and constitution of Circuit Bench of Bombay High Court at Kolhapur
by
resorting Sub-Sec.(3) of Sec.51 of State
Organisation Act, 1956,by way of “interim measure”, the Government of Maharashtra has taken Well Come step by
passing the Resolution in the Cabinet, supporting and conceding the demand of
the peoples of six districts, to Establish a Circuit Bench at Kolhapur.
The “Question” is now whether
the will of the peoples of six districts of constitution of Circuit Bench of
Bombay High Court, at Kolhapur, which is expressed by the peoples of Six
District through the Government of Maharashtra will be converted in to reality
by the Judiciary, AND
THEREBY THE “GADI” [THRONE] OF CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ, THE GREAT MARATHA
EMPEROR, WILL BE HONOURED.
As
compare to the sacrifice of the then princely states, who surrender their Rule,
sacrifice by the concerned would means loss of a Drop in an Ocean.
Would THE concern Honour the “Gadi [Throne] of
Chhatrapati Shivaji, the Great Maratha Emperor, by accepting the demand and
constituting the Circuit Bench of Bombay High Court, at Kolhapur forthwith?
Quote:
“I
sought to hear the voice of God & Climbed the toppest steeple, but God
declared, Go down again - I dwell among the people.”
[By:
Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, UK]
Article By: - Ashokrao Dattatray Kuigade, Advocate,
President,
Federation of Labour Law Practitioners
Associations of Maharashtra.
Author is engaged in the profession as an
Advocate for last 43 years.
Mob. : - 98
60 36 13 25
E-Mail
:- kuigadea@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment