Petitions

P.L. Jaitly

.

Remarks

This document is a letter dated 27 February 1948 from P. L. Jaitly of Allahabad, addressed to the Speaker of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Referring to a newspaper report in Patrika concerning the amalgamation of the High Court to sit at Allahabad, the author raises a constitutional objection to the continued presence and participation of Muslim League members in the U.P. Legislative Assembly after 15 August 1947. Jaitly argues that, following the partition of India under the Indian Independence Act, 1947, Muslim League representatives and their voters were constitutionally associated with the new Dominion of Pakistan and therefore could not validly remain members of legislative bodies in India.

The letter contends that whether Partition is understood as territorial or communal, residents and voters as of 15 August 1947 became constitutionally attached to one dominion alone, unless naturalised under Indian law. On this reasoning, the author claims that the representation of Muslim League members in the Assembly rendered its proceedings constitutionally defective and invalid. The letter urges urgent rectification of this alleged constitutional error before the continuation of legislative business and was widely circulated to senior constitutional and political authorities at both the Union and provincial levels.

CAP 23.1

To 

The Hon’ble Speaker,
U.P. Legislative Assembly,
L U C K N O W. 

 

CAP 23.2

Sir, 

Reference to publication in “Patrika” dated 26th Faby:, 1948, on page 2, regarding amalgmation of High Court to sit at Allahabad, I find Muslim League member s are still continuing in the Assembly and participating in the proceedings of the House which is unconstitutional[unclear] since 15.8.47 after the division of India in accordance with the Indian Independence Act 1947. The territories of the two new dominions were decided on the settlement of the Muslim League representatives on the one side and the Congress nominated members on the other and one dominion was assigned to the followers of the Islam according to the demand of Muslim League who got the territory of one dominion in the name of ‘Pakistan’. Now it follows that the voters of the ‘Pakistan’ are the voters in that territory who caused the division on the basis of the settlement. If this division is on the basis of territory of two dominions then all the residents living in that territory on 15.8.47 are voters of that territory and they cannot be voters of the other territory unless Naturalisation Act is passed to accept the foreigners as the residents of the other territory and if the division of the territory is on the basis of Muslim or non-Muslims ipso facto residents of that territory having right of votes only in that territory and therefore they cannot remain in the legislation of the non-Muslims territory alloted under the Indian Independence Act. Further, if the division of India had been on the basis of territory only irrespective of residential rights of the party then constitution-ally all the residents residing on 15.8.47 in the territory have become ipso facto constitutionally voters of that territory alone. So the representation 

P.T.O. 

 of Muslim League members in the House is not consti-tutional and as such the proceedings of the Assembly cannot be said to be valid when the representation in the Assembly is defective and unconstitutional. 

CAP 23.3

It is, therefore, submitted for the protection of the people s rights of respective two dominions that constitutional error be rectified before continuing Assembly proceedings under such circumstances of defact[unclear] and illegality of the constitution complained above. 

CAP 23.4

Your m.o. servant, 

[signature] 

(P.L. Jaitly), 

27.2.48.       

15/17, Canning Road[unclear], Allahabad. 

CAP 23.5

c.c. sent to:- 

  1. Constitutional Advisor, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 
  1. Hon’ble Law Member, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 
  1. Hon’ble Speaker, Legislative Assembly, New Delhi. 
  1. Hon’ble President, Constituent Assembly, New Delhi. 
  1. Hon’ble President, Council of State, New Delhi. 
  1. Hon’ble Minister of Justice, U.P. Govt., Lucknow. 
  1. Hon’ble Premier, U.P., Lucknow. 
  1. Hon’ble Prime Minister, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 
  1. H.E. Governor of U.P., Lucknow. 
CAP Note

1.Certain content in the document was unclear or incompletely written. The same has been marked as [unclear]. 

2.Typographical errors in the original document have been retained to ensure authentic reproduction of the original document.