No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Official discretion, errors, and oversights: legal bureaucracy and the question of justice in twentieth-century India
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 November 2022
Abstract
Late colonial juridical practice in India was prone to bureaucratic errors and shared with the police a fundamental disinterest in the liberty of ordinary people. This article tells the politically marginal but highly revealing story of how a series of errors during the arrest and subsequent detention of an elderly man called Peter Budge—an innocent bystander in a situation of heightened communal tensions—led to a momentary scandal in the United Provinces administration in the year 1947–48. Peter's case disappeared between the cracks of bad record-keeping, leading to his lengthy and unlawful detention. It raises important questions about the complementary relation between law and violence, and the fictitious nature of public-order laws. In contrast to the scholarship that has discussed the spectacular violence of the state, this article looks at the ‘other’ acts of violence of the state and argues that the everyday reality of public-order enforcement is key to understanding the nature and operations of the late colonial and post-colonial state.
Keywords
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Royal Asiatic Society
References
1 Gupta, Akhil, Red Tape: Bureaucracy, Structural Violence, and Poverty in India (Durham, 2012)Google Scholar; Hull, Matthew, Government of Paper: The Materiality of Bureaucracy in Urban Pakistan (Berkeley, 2012)Google Scholar; Mathur, Nayanika, Paper Tiger: Law, Bureaucracy, and the Developmental State in Himalayan India (Cambridge, 2016)Google Scholar; Sherman, Taylor C. et al. , From Subjects to Citizens: Society and the Everyday State in India and Pakistan, 1947–1970 (Cambridge, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Weber, Max, Economy and Society (Berkeley, 2002 [1922])Google Scholar; Weber, Max, ‘Bureaucracy’, in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, (eds) Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright (Oxford, 1946), pp. 196–244Google Scholar.
3 Das, Veena, ‘The signature of the state: the paradox of illegibility’, in Anthropology in the Margins of the State, (eds) Das, V. and Poole, D. (New Delhi, 2004), pp. 225–252Google Scholar; Gupta, A., ‘Blurred boundaries: the discourse of corruption, the culture of politics, and the imagined state’, American Ethnologist 22.2 (1995), pp. 375–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Taussig, Michael, The Magic of the State (New York, 1997)Google Scholar.
4 T. Mitchell, ‘Society, economy, and the state effect’, in State/Culture: State Formation after the Cultural Turn, (ed.) G. Steinmetz (Ithaca, 1999), pp. 76–97; Scott, James. C., Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven, 1998)Google Scholar.
5 Kafka, Franz, The Trial (London, 2000)Google Scholar; Franz Kafka, The Great Wall of China: Stories and Reflections, (trans) Willa Muir and Edwin Muir (New York, 1948); Kafka, Franz, ‘Before the law’, in Franz Kafka: Collected Stories (New York, 1998), pp. 173–175Google Scholar; Franz Kafka, The Castle, (trans.) Mark Harman (New York, 1998).
6 Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (London, 2006)Google Scholar.
7 Graeber, David, The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy (New York, 2015)Google Scholar.
8 Bernstein, Anya and Mertz, Elizabeth, ‘Introduction. Bureaucracy: ethnography of the state in everyday life’, PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 34.1 (2011), pp. 6–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gupta, ‘Blurred boundaries’, pp. 375–402.
9 Cohn, B., Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India (Princeton, 1996)Google Scholar.
10 Stoler, Ann Laura, Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense (Princeton, 2009), p. 28Google Scholar.
11 Emma Tarlo, ‘Paper truths: the Emergency and slum clearance through forgotten files’, in The Everyday State and Society in Modern India, (eds) C. Fuller and V. Benei (Delhi, 2000), pp. 68–90. While investigating the emergency period in India (1975–1977), Tarlo has highlighted the motive of ‘paper truths’ vigorously generated by state bureaucracy to repress the uncomfortable memory of the period, which included gross violations of human rights.
12 Stokes, Eric, The English Utilitarians and India (Oxford, 1990) p. 372Google Scholar.
13 J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart (ed.), An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Whithorn, 1970). Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham formulated a framework for calculating the amount of pleasure or pain that a specific action is likely to cause. The calculation included several variables (intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent) which Bentham referred to as ‘circumstances’. Early colonial liberal thought (for example, Macaulay) was guided by such a Benthamian philosophy and argued that the East India Company needed to create new, better, and modern laws for the Indians. Such laws were supposed to be superior to the traditional practices of adjudication (despotism).
14 Saha, Jonathan, ‘Colonization, criminalization and complicity: policing gambling in Burma c. 1880–1920’, South East Asia Research 21.4 (2013), pp. 655–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Special issue: Colonial histories in South East Asia—Papers in Honour of Ian Brown; also see Gould, William, ‘Subjects to citizens? Rationing, refugees and the publicity of corruption over Independence in UP’, Modern Asian Studies 45.1 (2011), pp. 33–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Rudolph, Lloyd I. and Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber, ‘Barristers and Brahmans in India: legal cultures and social change’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 8.1 (1965), pp. 24–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 Hull, Government of Paper.
17 Kafka, Ben, The Demon of Writing: Powers and Failures of Paperwork (Cambridge, 2012), p. 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 Ibid., p. 11; pp. 81–82.
19 Hull, Matthew S., ‘Documents and bureaucracy’, Annual Review of Anthropology 41 (2012), pp. 251–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 Hussain, Nasser, The Jurisprudence of Emergency: Colonialism and the Rule of Law (Ann Arbor, 2003), pp. 35–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 Sarat, Austin and Clarke, Conor, ‘Beyond discretion: prosecution, the logic of sovereignty, and the limits of law’, Law and Social Inquiry 33.2 (2008), p, 389CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Talal Asad, ‘Where are the margins of the state?’, in Anthropology in the Margins of the State, (eds) Das and Poole, p. 287.
23 Lowenstein, Andrew B., ‘Judicial review and the limits of prosecutorial discretion’, American Criminal Law Review 38 (2001), p. 357Google Scholar.
24 Ely, Amie N., ‘Prosecutorial discretion as an ethical necessity: the Ashcroft memorandum's curtailment of the prosecutor's duty to “seek justice”’, Cornell Law Review 90 (2004), p. 237Google Scholar.
25 Levenson, Laurie L., ‘Working outside the rules: the undefined responsibilities of federal prosecutors’, Fordham Urban Law Journal 26 (1999), p. 557Google Scholar.
26 Davis, Angela J., ‘The American prosecutor: independence, power, and the threat of tyranny’, Iowa Law Review 86 (2001), pp. 393–465Google Scholar.
27 Vorenberg, James, ‘Decent restraint of prosecutorial power’, Harvard Law Review 94 (1981), pp. 1521–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 Hussain, The Jurisprudence of Emergency, pp. 4–5.
29 Ibid., p. 5.
30 Ibid., p. 6.
31 Sherman, Taylor C., State Violence and Punishment in India (Abingdon, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Condos, Mark, The Insecurity State: Punjab and the Making of Colonial Power in British India (Cambridge, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rao, Anupama, ‘Problems of violence, states of terror: torture in colonial India’, Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies 3.2 (2001), pp. 186–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wagner, Kim, The Skull of Alam Bheg: The Life and Death of a Rebel of 1857 (London, 2017)Google Scholar; Wagner, Kim A., The Amritsar Massacre: An Empire of Fear and the Making of Massacre (New Haven and London, 2019)Google Scholar.
32 See ‘Inquiry about the detention of Mr. Peter Budge about a year without produced before court’, File No. 814/48, Home Department (Criminal), Uttar Pradesh State Archives, Lucknow (hereafter UPSA).
33 See Appendix 2, containing Roman transliteration of ‘Naqalrapat number 22 roznamcha-am muwarakha, June 2, 1947, 11 ¼ bajey, Thana Allambagh, Lucknow’, part of File no. 814/48, Home Department (Criminal), UPSA.
34 Merton, Robert K., Social Structure and Social Theory (New York, 1968)Google Scholar.
35 Gouldner, Alvin, Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy (New York, 1954)Google Scholar.
36 Barnard, Chester, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, MA, 1938)Google Scholar; Blau, Peter, The Dynamics of Bureaucracy (Chicago, 1955)Google Scholar.
37 ‘Deterrent Punishment for rioters, Ordinance Promulgated in U.P.’, Hindustan Times, 26 May 1947.
38 See File No. 38/37/47, Public (A), National Archives of India (NAI).
39 This is an observation made in the enquiry report submitted by Justice Desai. The author had access to the English translation of the documents related to the case. These documents were part of File No. 814/48, Home Department (Criminal), UPSA.
40 ‘Release after nearly a years’ jail as undertrial’, The Pioneer, 11 May 1948.
41 Das and Poole (eds), Anthropology in the Margins of the State.
42 Misse, Michel, ‘O papel do inquéritopolicial no processo de incriminação no Brasil: algumas reflexões a partir de umapesquisa’, Revista Sociedade e Estado 26.1 (2011), pp. 15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Paula Chagas Lessa Vidal, ‘Osdonos do carimbo’: investigaçãopolicialcomoprocedimentoescrito (Rio de Janeiro, 2013).
43 Misse, ‘O papel do inquéritopolicial no processo de incriminação no Brasil: algumas reflexões a partir de umapesquisa’, p. 19.
44 See Judicial Inquiry Report, and the draft of the report by the district magistrate. Part of File no. 814/48, Home Department (Criminal), UPSA.
45 Lipsky, Michael, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (New York, 1980)Google Scholar.
46 Asad, ‘Where are the margins of the state?’, p. 285.
47 Ibid.
48 Section 152 CrPC deals with ‘Assaulting or obstructing a public servant when suppressing riot, etc.’; Section 188 IPC deals with ‘Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant’. What is significant about these sections is that it is not necessary that the ‘offender’ should intend to produce harm or contemplate his/her disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that they know of the order which they are disobeying, and that their disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.
49 See File No. 462/1948, Home Department (Police) B, ‘Criminal Law Amendment Act, Question of issue of orders under section 144’, p. 3, part of File No. 814/48, UPSA.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid., p. 4.
52 See File No. 462/1948, Home Department (Police) B, ‘Criminal Law Amendment Act. Question of issue of orders under section 144’, p. 4, part of File No. 814/48, UPSA.
53 Ibid.
54 See File No. 462/1948, Home Department (Police) B, ‘Criminal Law Amendment Act, Question of issue of orders under section 144’, p. 9, part of File No. 814/48, UPSA.
55 Ibid.
56 See ‘Section 249’, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for India.
57 Gould, ‘From subjects to citizens?’, pp. 33–56.