Bengal Regulation III of 1818

Last updated

The Bengal Regulation III of 1818, officially the Bengal State Prisoners Regulation, III of 1818, was a law for preventive detention enacted by the East India Company in the Presidency of Bengal in 1818. [1] The law empowered the administration to detain an individual indefinitely, on the basis of suspicion of criminal intent, and without having to commit the detainee to trial. [2] Similar laws were enacted in the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay. [3] The act, along with a similar law enacted in 1915 was put to significant implementation during World War I in British India and remained enforced until at least 1927. It was focus of much criticism amongst Indian members of regional Presidency councils because of the arbitrary and rampant use for detaining anybody suspected of nationalist sympathies during and after the war.

Contents

Preface

In instances where the security of Bengal necessitates the imposition of personal restraint on individuals, even in the absence of adequate grounds for initiating judicial proceedings, or when such proceedings may not be suitable for the circumstances or may be deemed inadvisable or inappropriate;

And recognizing the importance of ensuring that, in all cases of the aforementioned nature, decisions for personal restraint should promptly emanate from governmental authority;

And considering that justice demands periodic review of the grounds for determining the imposition of personal restraint on any individual, outside the realm of judicial processes, and that affected individuals should have the liberty to bring to the Government's attention any circumstances pertaining to the supposed grounds of such determination or its execution;

And acknowledging the necessity, in the pursuit of justice, to attend to the well-being of every State prisoner held under this Regulation, ensuring adequate provisions for their support based on their social standing and personal needs, as well as those of their families;

And recognizing that the aforementioned reasons occasionally require the attachment and temporary management of the estates and lands of zamindars, talukdars, and others by Revenue Authorities without resorting to judicial proceedings;

And deeming it essential to establish legal provisions that safeguard the just rights and interests of individuals whose estates may be subject to attachment under the direct authority of the Government; [4]

Significance

The regulatory framework outlined in the aforementioned context holds paramount significance in striking a delicate balance between the imperative of ensuring security in Bengal and safeguarding individual rights. The provision allowing the imposition of personal restraint, even without immediate grounds for judicial proceedings, recognizes the exigencies of certain situations where swift action is essential. This underscores the government's commitment to proactively address security concerns, ensuring the safety and well-being of the region.

The emphasis on the prompt emanation of decisions from governmental authority in cases of personal restraint highlights the need for an efficient and responsive system. This approach is crucial in managing potential threats effectively and preventing undue delays that could compromise security.

A noteworthy aspect is the provision for periodic review outside traditional judicial processes. This mechanism serves as a safeguard against potential abuses of power, providing affected individuals with the opportunity to present relevant circumstances. This commitment to transparency and fairness aligns with the principles of justice, ensuring that decisions regarding personal restraint are continually assessed and justified.

The acknowledgment of the well-being of state prisoners and the provision for adequate support based on social standing and personal needs exemplifies a humane approach within the regulatory framework. By recognizing the importance of supporting not only the individuals subjected to restraint but also their families, the framework aligns with principles of dignity and compassion.

The temporary attachment and management of estates and lands without resorting to judicial proceedings reflect a pragmatic approach to addressing security concerns promptly. Establishing legal provisions to safeguard the rights and interests of individuals affected by such actions demonstrates a commitment to preventing arbitrary exercises of authority, and ensuring a fair and just process.

In conclusion, the significance of this regulatory framework lies in its ability to navigate the complex landscape between security imperatives and individual rights. By prioritizing efficiency, transparency, and humane treatment, the framework establishes a comprehensive approach to address security concerns while upholding the principles of justice and fairness. [5]

Related Research Articles

Habeas corpus is a recourse in law through which a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order the custodian of the person, usually a prison official, to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether the detention is lawful.

In American criminal law, a material witness is a person with information alleged to be material concerning a criminal proceeding. The authority to detain material witnesses dates to the First Judiciary Act of 1789, but the Bail Reform Act of 1984 most recently amended the text of the statute, and it is now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3144. The most recent version allows material witnesses to be held to ensure the giving of their testimony in criminal proceedings or to a grand jury.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Bangladesh</span> Supreme law of Bangladesh

The Constitution of Bangladesh, officially the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh is the supreme law of Bangladesh. The document provides the framework that demarcates the Bangladeshi republic with a unitary, parliamentary democracy, that enshrines fundamental human rights and freedoms, an independent judiciary, democratic local government and a national bureaucracy.

The Internal Security Act 1960 was a preventive detention law in force in Malaysia. The legislation was enacted after the Federation of Malaya gained independence from Britain in 1957. The ISA allows for detention without trial or criminal charges under limited, legally defined circumstances. On 15 September 2011, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak said that this legislation will be repealed and replaced by two new laws. The ISA was replaced and repealed by the Security Offences Act 2012 which has been passed by Parliament and given the royal assent on 18 June 2012. The Act came into force on 31 July 2012.

Judicial deference is the condition of a court yielding or submitting its judgment to that of another legitimate party, such as the executive branch in the case of national defense. It is most commonly found in countries, such as the United Kingdom, which lack an entrenched constitution, as the essential purpose of such documents is to limit the power of the legislature.

The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) was a controversial law passed by the Indian parliament in 1971 giving the administration of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Indian law enforcement agencies very broad powers – indefinite preventive detention of individuals, search and seizure of property without warrants, and wiretapping – in the quelling of civil and political disorder in India, as well as countering foreign-inspired sabotage, terrorism, subterfuge and threats to national security. The law was amended several times during the subsequently declared national emergency (1975–1977) and used for quelling political dissent. Finally it was repealed in 1977, when Indira Gandhi lost the 1977 Indian general election and the Janata Party came to power.

The Fundamental Rights in India enshrined in part III of the Constitution of India guarantee civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as citizens of India. These rights are known as "fundamental" as they are the most essential for all-round development i.e., material, intellectual, moral and spiritual and protected by fundamental law of the land i.e. constitution. If the rights provided by Constitution especially the Fundamental rights are violated the Supreme Court and the High Courts can issue writs under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, respectively, directing the State Machinery for enforcement of the fundamental rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Detention (imprisonment)</span> Process whereby a state or private citizen lawfully holds a person, removing their freedom

Detention is the process whereby a state or private citizen lawfully holds a person by removing their freedom or liberty at that time. This can be due to (pending) criminal charges preferred against the individual pursuant to a prosecution or to protect a person or property. Being detained does not always result in being taken to a particular area, either for interrogation or as punishment for a crime. An individual may be detained due a psychiatric disorder, potentially to treat this disorder involuntarily. They may also be detained for to prevent the spread of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis.

Administrative detention is arrest and detention of individuals by the state without trial. A number of jurisdictions claim that it is done for security reasons. Many countries claim to use administrative detention as a means to combat terrorism or rebellion, to control illegal immigration, or to otherwise protect the ruling regime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internal Security Act (Singapore)</span> Statute of the Parliament of Singapore

The Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) of Singapore is a statute that grants the executive power to enforce preventive detention, prevent subversion, suppress organized violence against persons and property, and do other things incidental to the internal security of Singapore. The present Act was originally enacted by the Parliament of Malaysia as the Internal Security Act 1960, and extended to Singapore on 16 September 1963 when Singapore was a state of the Federation of Malaysia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defence of India Act 1915</span>

The Defence of India Act 1915, also referred to as the Defence of India Regulations Act, was an emergency criminal law enacted by the Governor-General of India in 1915 with the intention of curtailing the nationalist and revolutionary activities during and in the aftermath of the First World War. It was similar to the British Defence of the Realm Acts, and granted the Executive very wide powers of preventive detention, internment without trial, restriction of writing, speech, and of movement. However, unlike the English law which was limited to persons of hostile associations or origin, the Defence of India act could be applied to any subject of the King, and was used to an overwhelming extent against Indians. The passage of the act was supported unanimously by the non-official Indian members in the Viceroy's legislative council, and was seen as necessary to protect against British India from subversive nationalist violence. The act was first applied during the First Lahore Conspiracy trial in the aftermath of the failed Ghadar Conspiracy of 1915, and was instrumental in crushing the Ghadr movement in Punjab and the Anushilan Samiti in Bengal. However its widespread and indiscriminate use in stifling genuine political discourse made it deeply unpopular, and became increasingly reviled within India. The extension of the law in the form of the Rowlatt Act after the end of World War I was opposed unanimously by the non-official Indian members of the Viceroy's council. It became a flashpoint of political discontent and nationalist agitation, culminating in the Rowlatt Satyagraha. The act was re-enacted during World War II as Defence of India act 1939. Independent India retained the law in a number of amended forms, which have seen use in proclaimed states of national emergency including Sino-Indian War, Bangladesh crisis, The Emergency of 1975 and subsequently the Punjab insurgency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Bangladesh</span> Overview of the law of Bangladesh

Bangladesh is a common law country having its legal system developed by the British rulers during their colonial rule over British India. The land now comprises Bangladesh was known as Bengal during the British and Mughal regime while by some other names earlier. Though there were religious and political equipments and institutions from almost prehistoric era, Mughals first tried to recognise and establish them through state mechanisms. The Charter of 1726, granted by King George I, authorised the East India Company to establish Mayor's Courts in Madras, Bombay and Calcutta and is recognised as the first codified law for the British India. As a part of the then British India, it was the first codified law for the then Bengal too. Since independence in 1971, statutory law enacted by the Parliament of Bangladesh has been the primary form of legislation. Judge-made law continues to be significant in areas such as constitutional law. Unlike in other common law countries, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has the power to not only interpret laws made by the parliament, but to also declare them null and void and to enforce fundamental rights of the citizens. The Bangladesh Code includes a compilation of all laws since 1836. The vast majority of Bangladeshi laws are in English. But most laws adopted after 1987 are in Bengali. Family law is intertwined with religious law. Bangladesh has significant international law obligations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pre-trial detention</span> Detention after arrest and charge until a trial

Pre-trial detention, also known as preventive detention, provisional detention, or remand, is the process of detaining a person until their trial after they have been arrested and charged with an offence. A person who is on remand is held in a prison or detention centre or held under house arrest. Varying terminology is used, but "remand" is generally used in common law jurisdictions and "preventive detention" elsewhere. However, in the United States, "remand" is rare except in official documents and "kept in custody until trial" is used in the media and even by judges and lawyers in addressing the public. Detention before charge is referred to as custody and continued detention after conviction is referred to as imprisonment.

<i>Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs</i> 1988 Singapore Court of Appeal judgement

Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs is a seminal case in administrative law decided by the Court of Appeal of Singapore in 1988. The Court decided the appeal in the appellants' favour on a technical ground, but considered obiter dicta the reviewability of government power in preventive detention cases under the Internal Security Act ("ISA"). The case approved the application by the court of an objective test in the review of government discretion under the ISA, stating that all power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power. This was a landmark shift from the position in the 1971 High Court decision Lee Mau Seng v. Minister of Home Affairs, which had been an authority for the application of a subjective test until it was overruled by Chng Suan Tze.

<i>Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs</i>

Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs is the name of two cases of the Singapore courts, a High Court decision delivered in 1989 and the 1990 judgment in the appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal. The cases were concerned with the constitutionality of amendments made to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and the Internal Security Act ("ISA") in 1989. The latter statute authorizes detention without trial on security grounds. These amendments had the effect of changing the law on judicial review of executive discretion under the ISA by re-establishing the subjective test enunciated in the 1971 High Court decision Lee Mau Seng v Minister for Home Affairs which had been overruled in 1988 by Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs, and limiting the right of judicial review to ensuring compliance with procedures specified in the ISA. In other words, the amendments were intended to render the exercise of power by the President and the Minister for Home Affairs under the ISA to detain persons without trial not justiciable by the courts. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal found that these amendments were constitutional because Parliament had done nothing more than enact the rule of law relating to the law applicable to judicial review. Thus, the amendments validly operated to deprive the applicant Teo Soh Lung of the ability to apply to the courts for judicial review.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rule of law doctrine in Singapore</span> Law doctrine in Singapore

In Singapore, the rule of law doctrine has been the topic of considerable disagreement and debate, largely through differing conceptions of the doctrine. These conceptions can generally be divided into two categories developed by legal academics, the "thin", or formal, conception and the "thick", or substantive, conception of the rule of law. The thin conception, often associated with the legal scholars Albert Venn Dicey and Joseph Raz, advocates the view that the rule of law is fulfilled by adhering to formal procedures and requirements, such as the stipulations that all laws be prospective, clear, stable, constitutionally enacted, and that the parties to legal disputes are treated equally and without bias on the part of judges. While people subscribing to the thin conception do not dismiss the importance of the content of the law, they take the view that this is a matter of substantive justice and should not be regarded as part of the concept of the rule of law. On the other hand, the thick conception of the rule of law entails the notion that in addition to the requirements of the thin rule, it is necessary for the law to conform to certain substantive standards of justice and human rights.

The Estonian Chancellor of Justice(Estonian: Õiguskantsler) is an independent supervisor of the basic principles of the Constitution of Estonia and the protector of individual rights. The institution seeks to ensure that authorities fulfil the obligations deriving from the principles of the rule of law and protection of human and social rights, human dignity, freedom, equality and democracy. The Chancellor of Justice is appointed to office by the Riigikogu on the proposal of the President.

Prisoners in New Zealand are afforded numerous, but not all, human rights. Criticisms by a United Nations report in 2014 highlighted various issues that constitute ill-treatment of prisoners, such as remand prisoners being routinely held on lock-down for 19 hours per day, an increasingly strict prison regime, and the mixing of adult and youth prisoners.

Aruna Sen v. Government of Bangladesh (1975) 27 DLR (HCD) 122 is a case of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. The case concerns unlawful detention under the Special Powers Act, 1974 (SPA). The judgement set a precedent for invalidating most detentions under the SPA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978</span> Preventive detention law in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir

The Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA) is a preventive detention law under which a person is taken into custody to prevent them from acting harmfully against "the security of the state or the maintenance of the public order" in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Whereas PSA applies only to Jammu and Kashmir, it is very similar to the National Security Act that is used by the central and other state governments of India for preventive detention.

References

  1. ↑ "Preventive detention an anachronism". www.thehindu.com. Archived from the original on 8 March 2015. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
  2. ↑ Omar 1996 , p. 41
  3. ↑ Harding & Hatchard 1993 , p. 60
  4. ↑ "THE STATE PRISONERS REGULATION, 1818". Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Bangladesh. Retrieved 26 November 2023.
  5. ↑ "THE STATE PRISONERS REGULATION, 1818". Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Bangladesh. Retrieved 26 November 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.