1,326
edits
robot: Create/upgrade articles. If there is a mistake please report on my talk page.
(robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)) |
(robot: Create/upgrade articles. If there is a mistake please report on my talk page.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{other uses|Defence of India Act (disambiguation)}} | {{other uses|Defence of India Act (disambiguation)}} | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=June | {{Use dmy dates|date=June 2022}} | ||
{{Use Indian English|date=June | {{Use Indian English|date=June 2022}} | ||
{{Infobox legislation | {{Infobox legislation | ||
| short_title =Defence of India (Criminal Law Amendment) Act,1915 | | short_title =Defence of India (Criminal Law Amendment) Act,1915 | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
===Preventive detention=== | ===Preventive detention=== | ||
The Bengal Regulation of 1812 and [[Bengal Regulation III of 1818|Regulation III of 1818]] were some of the earliest laws in British India to incorporate the provisions of [[Preventive detention]], without having to commit the detainee to trial.<ref name=Hindu>{{cite web |url=http://www.thehindu.com/op/2004/09/07/stories/2004090700101500.htm |title= | The Bengal Regulation of 1812 and [[Bengal Regulation III of 1818|Regulation III of 1818]] were some of the earliest laws in British India to incorporate the provisions of [[Preventive detention]], without having to commit the detainee to trial.<ref name=Hindu>{{cite web |url=http://www.thehindu.com/op/2004/09/07/stories/2004090700101500.htm |title=The Hindu : Preventive detention an anachronism |website=www.thehindu.com |access-date=27 January 2022 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20150308120948/http://www.thehindu.com/op/2004/09/07/stories/2004090700101500.htm |archive-date=8 March 2015 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In the Presidencies of [[Presidency of Madras|Madras]] and [[Bombay Presidency|Bombay]], similar laws had been enacted in 1819 and 1827 respectively.<ref name=V.B.Patel553>{{Harvnb|Patel|1995|p=532}}</ref> Prisoners under these regulations had no right of ''[[habeas corpus]]''.<ref name=Ghosh398>{{Harvnb|Ghosh|1995|p=398}}</ref> Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code introduced the writ of Habeas Corpus in 1882.<ref name=Ghosh398/> In 1907, emergency ordinances were issued in Punjab and in Eastern Bengal and Assam on the fiftieth anniversary of the 1857 mutiny. This allowed abolishment of public meetings, and the Indian press was subjected to controls to limit seditious material being published.<ref name=Riddick92/> The Explosive Substances Act and the Newspaper Act were passed in June 1908 to try and arrest agitation. | ||
In June 1907 local governments were further authorised to initiate proceedings against local press publishing seditious material amongst civilian population or the army.<ref name=Riddick92/> ''[[The Indian Sociologist]]'' was banned in India in September 1907 and in November that year the [[Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act, 1907|Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act]] was passed.<ref name=Riddick93>{{Harvnb|Riddick|2006|p=93}}</ref> February 1910 saw the introduction of [[Press Act|Indian Press Act]] which allowed Provincial governments to ask for punitive securities of up to Rs 5,000 from newspapers likely to incite sedition and violence. This act resulted in a number of nationalist publications closing down unable to provide such a surety.<ref name=Riddick93/> | In June 1907 local governments were further authorised to initiate proceedings against local press publishing seditious material amongst civilian population or the army.<ref name=Riddick92/> ''[[The Indian Sociologist]]'' was banned in India in September 1907 and in November that year the [[Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act, 1907|Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act]] was passed.<ref name=Riddick93>{{Harvnb|Riddick|2006|p=93}}</ref> February 1910 saw the introduction of [[Press Act|Indian Press Act]] which allowed Provincial governments to ask for punitive securities of up to Rs 5,000 from newspapers likely to incite sedition and violence. This act resulted in a number of nationalist publications closing down unable to provide such a surety.<ref name=Riddick93/> | ||
===Criminal law amendment 1908=== | ===Criminal law amendment 1908=== | ||
Failure of prosecution in a number of cases under the Criminal procedures act 1898 led to a special act whereby crimes of nationalist violence were to be tried by a special tribunal composed of three high-court judges. December 1908 saw the passage of the Criminal Law amendments under the terms of Regulation III of 1818 and to suppress associations formed for seditious conspiracies.<ref name=Riddick93/> The act was first applied to deport nine Bengali revolutionaries to [[Mandalay prison]] in 1908.{{citation needed|date=October | Failure of prosecution in a number of cases under the Criminal procedures act 1898 led to a special act whereby crimes of nationalist violence were to be tried by a special tribunal composed of three high-court judges. December 1908 saw the passage of the Criminal Law amendments under the terms of Regulation III of 1818 and to suppress associations formed for seditious conspiracies.<ref name=Riddick93/> The act was first applied to deport nine Bengali revolutionaries to [[Mandalay prison]] in 1908.{{citation needed|date=October 2022}} Despite these measures however, high standards of evidence demanded by the [[Calcutta High Court]], insufficient investigations by police, and at times outright fabrication of evidence led to persistent failure to tame nationalist violence.<ref name=Horniman42>{{Harvnb|Horniman|1984|p=42}}</ref> Police forces felt unable to deal with the operations of secretive nationalist organisations, leading to demands for special powers. These were opposed vehemently in the Indian press, which argued against any extension of already wide powers enjoyed by the police forces in India, and which it was argued was being used to oppress Indian people.<ref name=Horniman43>{{Harvnb|Horniman|1984|p=43}}</ref> | ||
==World War I== | ==World War I== | ||