(Cornwalis Code) Charter Act of 1793
-
Upload
avinash-goud-n-j -
Category
Documents
-
view
49 -
download
3
Transcript of (Cornwalis Code) Charter Act of 1793
1
PR OJ E CT
ON
CH A R TE R AC T OF 1793
S U B M I T T E D T O -……………………
S U B M I T T E D B Y - A S H U T O S H R A V I
R O L L N O 324
2 N D S E M E S T E R
S U B M I T T E D O N -16 T H A P R I L 2010
2
CHANAK YA NATI ONAL LA W UNI VE R SITY
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
I N T R O D U C T I O N
REFORMS MADE BY LORD CORNWALLIS
DEFECTS OF THE SCHEME OF 1793
CHANGES IN THE YEAR 1794
CHANGES DURUING 1795-1797
ADALAT SYSTEM IN BENARAS
C O N C L U S I O N
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all we want to thank GOD for successfully completing this project. Then we want to
give my sincere thanks to our respected History faculty, Mr…………………………….. ,
who has guided us all the way in completing this project.
Then we would like to give thanks to our librarians who have helped us all the way in
searching through the source materials which help us lot in completing the project.
The list couldn‟t be completed without thanking all our friends who have encouraged me all
the way in completing the project
4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researchers have used the doctrinal method in his research, that is, extensive use of literary
sources and materials were used to conduct the study. The researchers mainly used secondary
sources to provide substance to the research analysis. The researcher has also put down immense
effort in order to understand the terms and concepts related to the subject which enriched the
study to a great extent.
In some case the researcher shall be bound to extract materials directly from the literary work of
certain authors which the researcher intends to adequately cite and notify in due course of time. The
researcher also intends to conduct the study on a more micro level in order to make the study more
objective and precise in relation to Charter act of 1793.
5
INTRODUCTION
The British rule in India at very first instance can not be said to be for the betterment of our
country but it is a fact that what the British did in order to consolidate their rule over India
and the steps that they took in order to get more profit, in a way, they turned out to be
beneficial for us. The present legal system of our country is more British than Indian. The
British needed a better administration of justice as, it would in turn, lead to a better trading
conditions that in furtherance would bring them more profit.
The period of 1772-1835 witnessed the first serious attempts at the establishment of an
effective and sound judicial system to protect the interests of all the sections. The reforms
brought about Lord Cornwallis with the principle of providing free justice to all were a
landmark in the Indian Legal history. These reforms basically streamlined the judicial system
and led to the establishment of proper judicial set up based on codes. After Lord Cornwallis,
Sir John Shore who succeeded him also had his contribution in the improvisation of the
judicial system. In subsequent sections we will be analysing the contribution of Sir John
Shore in the development of this legal system.
6
REFORMS MADE BY LORD CORNWALLIS
The Governor-Generalship of Lord Cornwallis constitutes an important epoch in the history
of modern India. It may be rightly called the period of reforms. His real and important work
lay in the “status of the covenanted civil services, the collection of land revenues and the
organization of judicature”. He introduced a judicial system based on the principle of equality
and justice, set up a gradation of civil courts, reformed criminal law, proclaimed the
sovereignty of law and brought out a new code of regulation called Cornwallis Code of Civil
Procedure, thus completing the work begun under Warren Hastings.
Judicial Reforms by Lord Cornwallis: Lord Cornwallis came to India in 1786 with the
definite instructions from the Directors, who had enjoined economy and simplification, to
reunite the functions of a revenue collector, civil judge and magistrate in one and the same
person. In obedience to his instructions, without expressing his views Cornwallis brought
about changes in the existing system in 1787. Accordingly European collectors were
empowered to deal with the revenue disputes and were also made the judge of the Diwani
Adalats enjoying full magisterial powers. However hie was enjoined not to mix the revenue
affairs with the civil suits. He tried the revenue matters in the maal adalats (revenue courts).
Appeal against the decision first lay to the Board of Revenue at Calcutta and then to the
Governor General and Council. Though Cornwallis brought about these changes as a loyal
servant, he was not happy over the combination of the judicial and the revenue functions. The
civil courts that were presided over by the revenue officers had gradually been converted into
the institutions of oppression and were continuously inflicting wrongs on the inhabitants of
this country. Therefore Cornwallis after a consultation with the judges and officials for the
next three years came up with a reform in the year 1790.
The Judicial Plan, 1790: The preamble to the regulation explained that the changes were
necessitated by „the numerous robberies, murders and other enormities which have been daily
committed throughout the country‟. The district fauzdari adalats were swept away and in their
places four circuit courts, three for Bengal and one for Bihar, presided over the by two judges
chosen from the covenanted civil service were set up. The judges decided these cases with the
help of Qazis and Muftis. These courts toured every district twice a year to try persons charge
sheeted by the city magistrates. The sadr nizamat was transferred from Murshidabad to
7
Calcutta where the Governor General and council who sat as judged continued to be assisted
by Qazis or Muftis. With this the criminal jurisdiction of the native Deputy Nawab was thus
finally abolished.
The Judicial Plan of 1793: The reforms brought about in this year were one of the most
important and landmark reforms made by Cornwallis as it was based on the postulate which
are regarded as essential and fundamental for the organization of the judicature in any
civilised country‟. The scheme was based on the principle of separation of powers and
accordingly the revenue and judicial function were given to different hands, though this
principle was afterwards departed from in the Governor-Generalship of Lord Hastings. The
collectors were divested of all judicial powers including the trial of revenue cases and were
left only with the power of collecting land revenue. The district civil court came to be
presided over by a class of new officers known as District Judge. An ascending hierarchy of
courts was set up. At the lowest level there were Munsiffs‟ courts presided over by the Indian
Commissioners who dealt with petty disputes involving amounting up to the value of Rs 50.
Next to this came the Court of Registrar presided over by the covenanted servant of the
company. He tried the cases up to the value of Rs 200. Appeals from both these courts lay to
the District or City Courts. Thereafter the District courts came, presided over by the British
judge and helped by the Indian assessors. Above them were the four provincial Courts of
Appeals, each under three European judges with the three European judges with the Indian
assessors at Patna, Dacca, Murshidabad and Calcutta. These judges were also the judges of
Circuit. It heard the cases referred to it by the government or the Sadr Diwani Adalat and
entertained the cases refused by the Mofussil Diwani Adalat. It dealt with the cases involving
a sum of Rs 1000. The highest court of appeal was Sadr Diwani Adalat consisting of the
Governor General and members of the council in Calcutta. It heard appeals involving over Rs
1000. An appeal against the decision of this court lay to the King-in-Council in disputes
exceeding 5000 pounds. The British subjects in the districts were made amenable to Diwani
Adalat. All those who lived away from Calcutta were refused licences until they agreed to
submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. The government servants were
made answerable to the Civil Court for the acts done by them in their official capacity. Thus
Cornwallis proclaimed the principle of Sovereignty of Law in India. More so in case of the
criminal justice the Islamic Law was still in practice. The law of Evidence was modified by
the regulation IX of 1793 which provided that “the religious persuasions of witnesses shall
not be considered as a bar to the conviction or condemnation of a prisoner.” This regulation
8
enabled the non-Muslims to give testimony against the Muslims in criminal cases. There was
another provision that put restriction on the right of the heir of a slain man to pardon the
murderer and substituted imprisonment for the mutilation. All these regulations were
embodied in the famous Cornwallis Code. The court fee which was to be paid at the time of
the institution of cases was at the rate of 2-5% was abolished so as to make justice cheap.
However, all these reforms that were unprecedented in the Indian Legal History, made by
Lord Cornwallis, were not free from defects. The defects and the further developments have
been dealt in the following sections.
9
Defects of the scheme of 1793
Cornwallis left India immediately after establishing the new system of Judiciary in 1793.he
did not stay to see the scheme in actual operation. The responsibility to work the scheme fell
on Shore who succeeded Cornwallis. Shore started his career as the Governor –General with
a profound respect for the Cornwallis system, his initial reaction being that‟‟ the judicial
system proceeds well, I am satisfied that his Lordship„s plan was solid, wise and proved
beneficial to the authority to the country‟‟. In the meanwhile, the court of Directors also
accorded their “strong and flattering approbation” of the arrangement adopted in 1793.
Accumulation of Arrears in Adalat – No system however deliberately and elaborately
planned, can be perfect and free of defects. The same was true of the Cornwallis system. A
serious problem which emerged was that the civil courts were faced with a large volume of
litigation, and arrears of cases awaiting disposal mounted very high, so much so that the
entire course of justice was threatened. An idea of the magnitude of the problem could be had
from the following account: In Burdwan, in 1795 the number of pending suits in the district
adalat was nearly thirty thousands. Taking into the consideration the time spent by the Judge
on his duties as a magistrate, the adalat could not dispose of more than ten cases a day, and
on that basis, the period required by the adalat to clear off the pending business would be
about eight or nine years; but if the present rate of filling the suits continued, the number of
suits pending at the end of that period would be one hundred and sixty- five thousand. Thus, a
person could not hope to have his suit decided within the foreseeable future and this defeated
the very purposes of having a court. A similar phenomenon emerged throughout Bengal,
Bihar and Orissa. The purpose of Cornwallis – to give to the Indians a free and impartially
Justice – was thus being completely nullified due to the vast accumulation of arrears in the
adalats.
Under the scheme of 1793, the function of deciding revenue disputes including demands of
revenue had been entrusted to diwani adalats Out of this arose two difficulties. It led to the
increase of the work before the adalats and thus led to the accumulation of undecided cases
there. Further disposal of revenue demands by zamindars against their tenants was very much
delayed by the adalats because of loads of work on them. This put the Zamindars in a
quandary, while the Government had summery power to realise its revenue arrears from the
zamindars by selling away the defaulters „lands, the zamindars had no much summary
method available to them realise their dues from tenants : they had to move against their
10
tenants through the extremely dilatory process of the adalats. From the point of view of the
zamindars, the situation was very inequitable; there was little prospect of their revenue
demands against their tenants of the Government‟s demands against them. The delays in
judicial process resulted in many zamindaries being sold. Many representatives were made to
the Government to the Government urging the need to mend matters. The wheels of justice
were clogged and this affected the government as well as the private individuals. The
collection of revenue was being adversely affected. It became indispensable to take steps to
set matters right. In this anxiety to ensure impartial justice, Cornwallis had prescribed an
elaborately procedure for the Diwani adalat to follow. He had taken the view that “ the forms
are equally essential to the due administration of justice .” and where the forms now
prescribed, differ from those heretofore in use the variation has been made with a view to
render them better adapted to the purposes for which they are established.
11
FAULTY PROCEDURE
THE best way out of the difficult situation would have been to increase the number of
adalats. This would have increased disposal of cases and migrated accumulation of business
in the adalats. Though the scheme of 1793 was conceived with the beat of motives to provide
justice at low cost, yet the mean adopted were not adequate to achieve this end. A close look
at its structure will reveal these defects. In this three provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orrisa,
only 26 diwani adalats were established. The jurisdiction of the registers and munsiffs was
very small; also they could not dispose of the matters finally, and their decree needed to be
lessened by munsiffs and registers court, further for every cases , howsoever small its value,
two appeals were provided which also increased the load of work on the adalats. Then there
were revenue cases also to deal with. Thus, while litigation was facilitated and recourse to
courts made easy, the large number of pending cases suits proved this point beyond doubt.
Shore‟s Government was not, however willing to adopt the expedient of increasing the
number of courts. It had a fervent faith in the sufficiency of the established courts. It took the
view that the scheme of 1793 provided for more courts than had been available previously
under the 1787 scheme .Under the 1793 Scheme , there was diwani adalats ,registers and
munsiffs, while in the 1787 scheme there was only one adalat. Even Judges could act like
collectors and so they do not have to pay full time on the administration of justice. On the
other hand the diwani judge under the 1793 scheme did not act as the collector and his sole
duty was to administer justice. Shore‟s government thus thought that the accumulation of
work in the adalat was merely a temporary phase and had resulted because the system had not
had enough time to operate fully, and as the courts settled down and exercised their powers
fully, accumulation of cases would abate. But the government‟s assumption was facile and
native and was based on a wrong premise. Before 1793, although one person held the office
of collector, judge and magistrate, yet he did not perform the judicial work regularly or
conscientiously. Suits of importance, or those which affected the government‟s interests,
probably were decided by the collector himself, but, by and large, the bulk of suits aiming the
individuals were settled by him or his officers in a summary manner. As the collectors
performed his work in a very perfunctory manner, not all litigation that might arise was
brought before him: people adjusted most of their disputes through the customary methods of
decision. After 1793, things changed, Access to the courts was now facilitated and justice
became easily available to all: court fees were abolished and so even the poor could now file
case and seek that the new Judges had no responsibility to collect revenue, but their work had
12
not diminished increased their work. No conclusions, therefore about the adequacy of the
courts under the system of 1793 could be drawn by reference to the pre-existing system.
The state judicial work in the country was extremely unhappy and some solid steps were
called for to give relief to the civil courts. But, as the Government firmly held the view that
the phase of arrears was temporary and would soon pass out with the system settling down, it
was not in a mood yet to effect any major adjustments in the Cornwallis Scheme. It thought
of effecting some minor adjustments only, and the first step was taken in 1794 with a view to
diminish congestion of work in the Diwani adalat.
13
CHANGES IN THE YEAR 1794
Regulation VIII of 1794 effected a minor modification in the mutual relationship between the
diwani adalat and the registers courts. Under the scheme of 1793 to free the diwani adalats
from petty suits and consequently, to enable them to decide quickly suits of greater value,
registers were authorised to decide suits up to RS. 200. But the efficacy of the arrangement
was diluted appreciably by the requirement that the decrees passed by the registers were not
to be valid unless countersigned by the Judge of the Diwani adalat denoting his approval
thereto. This had to be done in each case whether the parties were dissatisfied with the
register‟s decision or not. At the time of countersignature, the judge had to look into the
proceeding before the register, and this occupied as much of his time as if he was deciding
the matter himself in the first instance. The register could not in these circumstances provide
any effective relief to the judge. The procedure multiplied labour unnecessarily and too much
time was wasted on petty matters. To prevent the time of the diwani adalat from being
occupied by petty suits, and to expedite the administration of Justice, Regulation VIII made
the decree of the register final in all suits of money or personal property valuing up to RS.25.
The diwani adalat was to have a discretionary power to revise the decision made by the
register in such case; the adalat‟s decree was to be final. In all cases of real property, and
those for personal valuing over RS.25, register decision were made appealable to the
provincial courts of Appeal in place of the Diwani Adalat as hitherto. This provided some
relief to the Diwani adalat.
The Regulation gave some further relief to the diwani adalats by providing that they could
refer to the collectors, for their report, any accounts the adjustment of which was necessary
for the final determination of a case concerning rent or revenue. The collectors after going
through the accounts were to make a report to the adalat which could either confirm set aside
or alter the account. The adalat could not, however refer to the collector any accounts relating
to a suit in which he, or any of his officers, servants, or the Government was party. The step
was taken to save the time of the adalat spent on adjustments of long and intricate account in
revenue cases. The provision did not give much power to the collectors as the reports made
by them were not final and the adalats had the final say. Reference of accounts to the the
collectors as the reports made by was optional for the adalats. The provision as such was not
objectionable; on the other hand, it was convenient, A collector could look through the
accounts more quickly and effectively than could the adalat. However, to some extent, it did
14
involve a departure from the policy underlying the scheme of 1793 which had sought to
separate completely the work of administration of justice from that of collecting revenue. But
this policy could hold the field for long. In course of time, more and more judicial power in
revenue matters was transferred to the collectors. The provision made in 1794, though not in
itself retransferring any judicial power to the collectors, did, however prove to be the
precursor of this future trend.
15
CHANGES DURING 1795-1797
The minor adjustments made in 1794 didn‟t alleviate the situation. The accumulation of
arrears in the district diwani adalats continued unabated and parties continued to wait
indefinitely for justice. The government, could not afford to remain inactive for long in such
a situation, consequently, in 1795 some more adjustments were introduced in the scheme of
1793, it effected some further re-adjustments in the mutual relationship of the various civil
courts without increasing their number. As noted above, in 1794, an appeal have provided to
the provincial courts of appeal from registers in all case of real property and in cases for
extent, but came to interfere considerably with the more important work of the provincial
court of appeal which had now to spend their time over petty matters. The parties concerned
were put to much inconvenience as they had to travel long distance to reach these courts
down that appeals from the register were to go to the district diwani adalat and not to the
district adalat was brought to be sufficient for the purposes of justice. Any further appeal to
the provincial court of appeal in petty cases unduly interfered with their disposed of appeal in
cases of a higher value.
Hitherto, two appeals had been provided for from the decision of munsiffs who decided cases
up to Rs. 50 only. The first appeal lay to the district diwani adalat, and the second to the
provincial court of appeal t which all decision of the district diwani adalats were appealable.
The system was inconvenient and vexatious to the parties involved in petty cases, and
resulted in delay and expense to them. In 1795, therefore, the system which emerged in the
district to administer civil justice was as follows: munsiffs decided cases up to Rs. 50 and one
appeal to the diwani adalat was allowed: registers decided cases up to Rs. 200; one appeal to
the district diwani adalat was allowed but no further; district diwani adalat decided cases over
Rs. 200 and appeals from them lay to the provincial courts of appeals; in case of over Rs.
1000 a further appeal lay to the Sadar Diwani adalat. These arrangements were convenient
and economic to the parties involved in petty litigation and saved time of the courts of
appeals which could henceforth be spent on more important cases.
Regulation xxxvii was enacted in 1795 to better enable the Sadar Diwani adalat to monitor
their progress made by the district Diwani adalat and the provincial courts of appeal in
determining suits pending before them. The register to the Sadar Diwani adalat was to
prepare each month general report specifying the number of suits determined in the month by
the Diwani adalat , register and munsiffs in each district , and the number of appeals decided
16
by each Provincial Court Of Appeal. After every six months , the register of the Sadar was to
compile a report on the number of cases pending before the various courts. For purpose of
comparison, the report was also to specify the number of cases shown pending in the
preceding half yearly report. The reason given by any court for any cases remaining
undecided were also to be submitted to the sadr Diwani adalat,
IMPOSITION OF COURT FEE
The above step failed to effect any appreciable reduction in the load of the work in district
diwani adalats. These measures were merely palliative but could not cure the basic malady
affecting the judicature. The areas of work continued to pile up as before and the adalats were
over burdened with work as ever; parties had to wait long for justice. In this situation
government could not remain complaisant for long. It had to devise some ameliorative steps
to expedite decision of suits and reduce congestion in adalats. Obviously, the best remedy to
meet the state of affairs would have been to increase the number of adalats, but the
government shirked from taking this step due primarily to consideration of cost. Instead of
this direct efficacious step, the government in its despair thought of discouraging litigation by
imposing fees. Lord Cornwallis in his desire to provide easy recourse to justice had abolished
court fees in 1793 and made justice wholly free from any monetary impositions. Even
appeals from decision of lower courts could be filed in higher courts without paying any
court
SCALE OF FEE:
According, regulation XXXVIII of 1795 imposed court fees and thus taxed administration of
justice. One anna in the rupee was to be paid by a plaintiff for filling suits before a munsiff;
the fees so received were to be appropriated by the munsiffs as compensation for his labour,
similarly, fees levied on suits filed before the registers were to be appropriated by them. For
filling suits before the district diwani adalats, fees were levied according to the following
sliding scale: from 50 to 200 rupees, half Anna in the rupee; from 1,000 to 50,000 rupees, at
a gradually decreasing rate of 3 percent to ½ percent; on sum over Rs. Provincial courts of
Appeal and in the Sadar Diwani Adalat. Certain other levies were also imposed, e.g. on
calling and summoning witness, filing exhibits or any other intermediate petition. The fees
were payable not only by those who would file their cases earlier and were awaiting disposal
of their cases at the hands of the courts. These persons were required to pay court fees before
a prescribed date. The result was that many pending cases required to pay court fees before a
17
prescribed date. The result was that many pending cases were dismissed for try were not
informed of the new requirement and thus failed to pay fees before the prescribed date, or
because many could not afford to pay either because people living in the interior of the
country were not informed of the new requirement and thus failed to pay fees before the
prescribed date or because could not able to afford it. This did lighten load of work on the
Judiciary. The policy of imposing court fees was taken a step further by regulation VI of
1797 which levied still heavier imposition, on suits, witness, exhibits, and appeals. The
purpose of the levy was still to further discourage the litigation in future.
RESULT
The expedient adopted by the government to provide relief to the over-worked courts was in
effect worse than the disease. Taxing litigation and thus making justice expensive and less
easily accessible led to a wholesale denial of justice to large section of people. It amounted to
frightening away suitors from the doors of the courts. Many people with genuine cases could
cases could not avail of the courts owing to their inability to defray expenses of a judicial
process and many lost their cases because of ignorance of the new levy. The propriety of the
step was questionable and dubious and many government officials criticised the step taken.
Taxing litigation was in reality being made use of as a source of income by the Government.
In a typical criticism of the system, the judge of Midnapur, he pointed that many person gave
up their cases in despair on finding the expenses on continuing them to be beyond their
means. It was not so much the original fee on the institution of a suit but the subsequent
charges on exhibits and witness that was intolerable and he continued. He was of the view
that not more than five percent of the suits filed could be fairly regarded litigation, and those
were probably instituted by men well able to hear the expense. Similarly, the Murshidabad
court of appeal commenting adversely on that measure stated that the levy of fees didn‟t
check litigiousness, but encouraged it, for “certainty of expenses added to the uncertainty of
the result, might deter parties from defending even just right.
18
APPEALS TO THE SADAR DIWANI ADALATS RESTRICTED
Under the scheme of 1793, appeals in cases of over Rs 1000 could ultimately be taken to the
Sadar Diwani adalat. Thus a large number of cases came before the Sadar Adalat. The
Governor General and the members of the council who constituted this adalat had
multifarious other duties to discharge and could not devote as much time to the Adalat‟s as
the quantum of work demanded. Further the adalat was occupied with small matters and
could not bestow much attention to the suits of greater magnitude. Shore‟s government felt
that some restriction is needed to be imposed on appeals to the Sadar Adalat, and took the
first step in this direction through Regulation XII of 1797 which made the decrees of the
provincial courts of appeal final in the case of money or personal property up to Rs 5000.
Appeals in the cases involving real property could still be taken to the Sadar Adalat if the
value of the subject matter happened to be over Rs 1000.
19
ADALAT SYSTEM IN BENARAS
In 1795 the government decided, with the concurrence of the Raja of Benaras, to introduce
into the Benaras province, as far as the local circumstances permitted, the same system of
administering justice as had been in the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orrisa in 1793. This
was achieved through a series of regulations enacted on 27th
March, 1795. The Benaras city
was formed into a district; the rest of Benaras province was divided into three districts of
Mirzapur, Gazipur and Jaunpur. For the trial civil suits, a diwani adalat was established in
each district with a company‟s covenanted servant as its judge and having the same
jurisdiction, powers and authority as its counterpart in Bengal. Munsiffs and registers were
also appointed in each district. To hear appeals from all four district diwani adalats, a
Provincial Court of appeal was established at Benaras having same powers and jurisdiction as
the similar court in Bengal. The provincial court of Appeal at Benaras was also to act as the
Court of Circuit for the trial of criminal offences. Appeals from this court went to the Sadar
Nizamat Adalat at Calcutta. In this judicial system, law showed some indulgence to the
Brahmins in the administration of criminal justice. No Brahmin was to be punished with
death; instead he was to be sentenced to transportation. In cases where the plaintiff and the
defendant belonged to different religious persuasions, the decision was to be given according
to the law of the defendant‟s religion. However, if the defendant happened to be a European
or a non-Hindu or non-Muslim, the law of the plaintiff was to prevail.
20
CONCLUSION
Governor-General Shore was called upon to effect changes in the system introduced by Lord
Cornwallis with a view to reduce the congestion of works in the adalats and expedite disposal
of cases. His reforms mainly followed two courses: restricting the rights of appeal to higher
courts from the decisions of the lower court and imposing court fees. The idea of restricting
appeals was basically sound and improvement over the system introduced by Cornwallis
which provided for too many appeals making administration of justice dilatory and
cumbersome process. The imposition of court fee on the other hand was a retrograde step. It
was imposed, the reason being to decrease the number litigations. But in a contrary effect it
shut the doors of justice for the poor and here Sir John Shore knocked out a vital principle of
the Cornwallis‟s system that was providing free justice to all.
21
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS REFERRED
1. OUTLINES OF INDIAN LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY by
PROF. M.P JAIN
2. LANDMARKS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF INDIA by
B.M GANDHI
3. HISTORY OF INDIA by H.V SREENIVASA MURTHY, V.S ELIZABETH