NDA (II) 2017 General Ability Test · Question 86 of 150

Correct — A, it proposed that the Indian magistrates would try Europeans in criminal cases. Sir Courtenay Ilbert, the law member of the Viceroy's Council, introduced the Bill on 9 February 1883 under Lord Ripon. It amended the Code of Criminal Procedure to lift the racial bar that had reserved criminal jurisdiction over European British subjects to European judges alone, so that an Indian district magistrate or sessions judge could try a European accused. European residents and Bengal planters organised a furious agitation through the European and Anglo-Indian Defence Association, and the amended Act passed on 25 January 1884 gave a European defendant the right to claim a jury at least half of whose members were European — a retreat that taught the emerging nationalist leadership both the depth of racial feeling in the ruling community and the value of organised agitation.

• (b)It allowed Indians to file criminal cases against Europeans. — Indians could already bring complaints against Europeans; the disability lay elsewhere. The bar was on who was competent to hear such a case, not on who could bring one, and it is that bar the Bill set out to remove.
• (c)It authorized Indian ICS officers to try Europeans in courts. — This is the closest of the three wrong choices, and the tension is worth naming. The Indian officers affected were in practice members of the covenanted service who had risen to district magistrate or sessions judge in the mofussil. But the Bill was framed in terms of judicial office and criminal jurisdiction, not of a service cadre, and it did not open every court to them — the change was confined to criminal trials of Europeans. Option (a) states the proposal in the Bill's own terms, which is why the key prefers it.
• (d)It was an agitation led by Ilbert in support of the nationalists. — Ilbert was a British law member of the Viceroy's Council drafting a piece of government legislation, not an agitator. The agitation the episode is remembered for was mounted against his Bill by the European community, and the nationalist lesson drawn from it was about the power of that agitation, not about any campaign he led.

Colonial law in India kept a formal racial distinction in criminal jurisdiction. European British subjects living outside the presidency towns could be tried only by European judges, and Indian judges of equal rank could not hear their cases. Ripon's administration, which had already repealed the Vernacular Press Act and passed the Local Self-Government Resolution of 1882, took this on as the next liberal step. The Bill fell foul of a settled European community that read equal jurisdiction as a threat.

The historical importance of the episode lies less in the statute than in the reaction. The agitation showed Indians that a well-organised pressure group could force a Viceroy to climb down, and it fed directly into the founding of the Indian National Congress two years later, in December 1885. Note that Lord Ripon is remembered on the Indian side for the Local Self-Government Resolution that earned him the title of father of local self-government in India, and on the European side for having conceded the Ilbert Bill controversy.

• The Bill was drafted by Sir Courtenay Ilbert and introduced on 9 February 1883 during Lord Ripon's viceroyalty.
• It amended the Code of Criminal Procedure to allow Indian magistrates and sessions judges to try European British subjects.
• The European and Anglo-Indian Defence Association led the opposition, with Bengal indigo and tea planters prominent in it.
• The compromise Act was passed on 25 January 1884 and came into force on 1 May 1884, giving a European accused the right to a jury at least half European.
• The Indian National Congress was founded in December 1885, two years after the controversy.

• Attributing the Ilbert Bill to Lord Lytton or Lord Curzon; it belongs to Ripon.
• Reading the Bill as a general grant of judicial equality — it was confined to criminal jurisdiction and was then diluted by the jury clause.
• Thinking the Bill was passed as drafted; the 1884 Act was a compromise, not the original proposal.

UPSC and NDA both return to this episode, usually asking what the Bill sought or pairing it with the right Viceroy.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  The Ilbert Bill controversy of 1883 took place during the viceroyalty of

  • (a)Lord Lytton
  • (b)Lord Ripon
  • (c)Lord Dufferin
  • (d)Lord Curzon

  Answer(b) Lord Ripon — the Bill was introduced by his law member, Sir Courtenay Ilbert.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  The compromise version of the Ilbert Bill enacted in 1884 gave a European accused the right to

  • (a)appeal directly to the Privy Council
  • (b)be tried only in a presidency town
  • (c)claim a jury at least half of whose members were European
  • (d)be tried by a British-born magistrate of his own choosing

  Answer(c) claim a jury at least half of whose members were European — the concession that ended the agitation.