UNIT – I: Evolution of Law and Legal Institutions
Q1. Discuss the development of personal laws in India during the colonial period. How
did British policy shape Hindu and Muslim personal laws?
Answer:
The development of personal laws in India during the colonial period marked a significant
transformation in the legal landscape, particularly due to British interventions. Personal
laws refer to laws that govern family matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption,
and succession. In India, these laws have traditionally been governed by religious texts and
customs, primarily Hindu law and Muslim law.
When the British East India Company began its rule, it adopted a policy of non-
interference in religious matters. The Charter of 1772 and Warren Hastings’ Judicial Plan
emphasized the application of personal laws for natives in matters concerning religion and
family. Thus, Hindu laws were applied to Hindus, and Islamic laws to Muslims, creating a
pluralistic legal framework.
For Hindus, the British based legal decisions on texts like the Manusmriti, Mitakshara, and
Dayabhaga, while for Muslims, they relied on the Shariat. However, since British judges
were unfamiliar with these texts and religious doctrines, court pandits and qazis were
appointed to assist in interpretation. Over time, however, British judges began interpreting
the texts themselves, often applying their own moral and legal reasoning, thereby altering
the original spirit of these laws.
Codification of personal laws began in the 19th century. However, it was not
comprehensive and only covered aspects like inheritance and succession. The Hindu
Widows Remarriage Act, 1856, Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930, and Hindu Women's
Right to Property Act, 1937 are notable legislations reflecting the social reform movements
of the time.
For Muslims, the Shariat Act of 1937 was passed to ensure that Muslim personal law was
uniformly applied, rather than customary practices that were often contradictory to
Islamic tenets. It marked the beginning of statutory recognition of Islamic personal law in
colonial India.
British interventions inadvertently froze the dynamic nature of personal laws, which were
earlier interpreted flexibly through customs. By codifying and judicially interpreting them,
they were turned into rigid legal frameworks. Thus, colonial policies created distinct
personal law systems that still persist in independent India.
Q2. Examine the development of law in the Presidency Towns. How did the British
legal institutions evolve in Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta?
Answer:
The evolution of law in the Presidency Towns—Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras—was a
foundational phase in the development of the Indian legal system. The British East India
Company initially operated through charters granted by the Crown, which enabled it to
establish legal authority in the territories it governed.
In Madras, a court system began with the establishment of the Court of Judicature in 1678.
In Bombay, the first formal court was the Court of Judicature at Bombay in 1672.
However, the most significant development came in Calcutta, where the British crown
established the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in 1774, through the
Regulating Act of 1773.
The Supreme Court was a royal court, independent of the East India Company, with
jurisdiction over British subjects and natives who entered into contracts or agreements
with the British. It administered English common law and equity. The establishment of the
Supreme Court marked a conflict between two legal systems: the English system of law and
the Company’s native courts or Adalats.
This led to the dual system of justice—the Supreme Court for British subjects and the
Company’s courts for the natives. This dichotomy created confusion and overlapping
jurisdiction. These conflicts culminated in the Act of Settlement, 1781, which restricted the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and emphasized non-interference in the personal laws
and customs of Indians.
Gradually, the legal institutions evolved. The Supreme Courts in Bombay and Madras
were established in 1823 and 1801 respectively, modeled after the Calcutta court. These
courts had jurisdiction over criminal and civil matters and were manned by English judges
trained in British law.
The presidency towns became islands of English law, unlike the Mufassil regions. The
British used these towns to experiment with legal principles, establish formal institutions,
and test systems of law that were later extended to the rest of India. This development laid
the groundwork for a centralized and hierarchical judicial system, culminating in the
establishment of the High Courts in 1861.
Q3. Trace the development of civil law in the Mufassil areas. Emphasize the role of
Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.
Answer:
The term "Mufassil" refers to the rural and non-presidency town areas of British India.
Unlike the Presidency Towns which were governed by English law through Supreme
Courts, the Mufassil regions operated under a different set of rules and institutions. The
development of civil law in these regions was gradual and complex, marked by the
Company’s attempt to regulate diverse populations with varying customs and personal
laws.
Initially, civil disputes in the Mufassil areas were decided based on personal laws of the
parties involved. For Hindus and Muslims, customary and religious laws were applied in
family matters. The judicial system included Diwani Adalats (civil courts) and Nizamat
Adalats (criminal courts), established under Warren Hastings’ plan in 1772. These courts
were manned by Indian judges (Munsiffs and Sadr Ameens), with European Collectors
overseeing administration.
However, British officers, unfamiliar with indigenous laws, often found it difficult to
administer justice consistently. To overcome this, they resorted to a broad principle: when
no clear rule could be found in the existing personal laws or customs, the court should
apply “justice, equity, and good conscience.”
This principle was first introduced formally in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa in the Regulation
III of 1793. It directed British judges to decide cases where no specific law applied, using
this principle—an equitable doctrine rooted in English common law. Over time, this
approach was extended across the Mufassil.
This method allowed judges to apply fairness and reason in situations where rigid religious
laws were inadequate or silent. However, this also led to the increasing application of
English legal principles in Indian courts, even in rural areas. Over time, British legal
concepts such as contract law, tort law, and property law began influencing Indian civil
law through this route.
Critics argue that “justice, equity, and good conscience” became a backdoor for English
law to be introduced in India. Nevertheless, it also brought uniformity and rationality in
adjudication, especially in commercial and property matters. It gave judges discretionary
power to ensure fair outcomes.
In conclusion, civil law in the Mufassil evolved from religious and customary laws to a
blend of indigenous practices and British legal principles. The principle of “justice, equity,
and good conscience” played a pivotal role in this evolution, shaping Indian civil law and
paving the way for future codification and legal modernization.
UNIT – II: Codification of Laws
Q4. Analyze the Charter of 1833 and the work of the First Law Commission. How did it
influence the codification of Indian laws?
Answer:
The Charter Act of 1833 was a significant milestone in Indian legal history. It marked a
shift from a commercial to an administrative role for the East India Company and initiated
the process of codifying Indian laws systematically.
One of the most significant features of the Charter of 1833 was the creation of a centralized
legislative body for all of British India. The Governor-General in Council was given the
exclusive power to make laws for the entire territory, leading to greater uniformity and
centralization in legal administration.
A major legal development following this Act was the appointment of the First Law
Commission in 1834 under the chairmanship of Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay. The
primary task of this Commission was to examine and consolidate existing laws and
recommend a uniform legal code for India.
The Commission’s most notable achievement was the drafting of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) in 1837. Although it wasn’t enacted until 1860, it laid the foundation for a modern
criminal law system in India. The IPC remains a central statute in Indian criminal law
even today.
The First Law Commission also worked on the Code of Civil Procedure and proposed the
Law of Evidence, Law of Contracts, and Succession Acts. The effort was to create clear,
concise, and accessible laws for both British and Indian subjects, removing ambiguity
caused by reliance on multiple sources—religious texts, customs, and judicial decisions.
This codification process reduced the discretionary powers of judges and made the legal
system more predictable and fair. Importantly, it also introduced secular principles of
justice, reducing reliance on religious laws for civil and criminal matters, except for
personal laws.
While the codification was criticized for being rooted in English legal traditions, it was also
praised for bringing clarity, uniformity, and modernity to Indian law. The First Law
Commission’s work laid the groundwork for subsequent codification efforts and greatly
influenced legal development in colonial India.
Q5. Discuss the establishment of the High Courts in 1861. How did they differ from the
earlier Supreme and Sadar Adalats?
Answer:
The establishment of High Courts in 1861 was a landmark development in the judicial
history of British India. Before this, two parallel judicial systems existed: the Supreme
Courts in the Presidency Towns (Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras), established under royal
charters, and the Company’s Sadar Adalats in the Mufassil areas. This dual system led to
jurisdictional conflicts and administrative confusion.
The Indian High Courts Act of 1861, passed by the British Parliament, aimed to unify and
streamline the judicial administration. It empowered the Crown to establish High Courts
in the Presidency Towns by amalgamating the Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats.
Accordingly, High Courts were established in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras in 1862, and
later in Allahabad in 1866.
These High Courts had original and appellate jurisdiction and could hear both civil and
criminal cases. They were also courts of record with the power to punish for contempt. The
Act provided for the appointment of both English and Indian judges, marking a
progressive shift from the all-European benches of earlier courts.
The High Courts differed from the earlier Supreme Courts in several ways:
• They unified the parallel court systems under one authority.
• They were empowered to apply both English law and Indian personal laws,
depending on the case.
• They operated under a codified legal framework, thanks to the Law
Commission’s earlier work.
• They allowed Indians to serve as judges and lawyers, increasing native
participation in the judicial process.
The High Courts became prestigious institutions, attracting some of the finest legal minds
in India. They played a crucial role in interpreting laws, developing legal doctrines, and
upholding the rule of law.
In conclusion, the establishment of High Courts in 1861 was a major step towards
modernizing the Indian judiciary. It brought efficiency, professionalism, and unity to the
legal system and laid the foundation for the judicial structure of independent India.
Q6. Examine the role and functioning of the Privy Council and the Federal Court in
India. Critically appraise the legacy of the Privy Council.
Answer:
The Privy Council, originally a body of advisors to the British Crown, gradually evolved
into the highest court of appeal for British colonies, including India. Its role in the Indian
legal system began in the 18th century and continued until the mid-20th century.
Under the Charter Act of 1833, Indian litigants were allowed to appeal civil and criminal
decisions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) in London. This
committee became the de facto final court of appeal for Indian cases. It had immense
influence on the Indian judiciary as it ensured uniform interpretation of laws and helped
develop precedents that were binding on Indian courts.
The Privy Council worked mainly through written submissions rather than oral hearings,
and its judgments were in English, not translated into Indian languages. Nevertheless, it
issued several landmark rulings, especially in matters of contract, tort, equity, and personal
laws. Its judgments shaped Indian legal doctrines and helped establish judicial discipline
and consistency across a diverse legal landscape.
Despite its contributions, the Privy Council faced criticism for several reasons:
• Geographical and cultural disconnect from Indian society.
• Lack of understanding of Indian customs, languages, and socio-religious
nuances.
• Expensive and time-consuming appeals, accessible mainly to the elite.
• Racial bias was often evident, with colonial interests prioritized in certain
rulings.
In contrast, the Federal Court of India, established under the Government of India Act,
1935, was India’s first indigenous apex court. It began functioning in 1937 and was located
in Delhi. It had original jurisdiction in disputes between the federal units and appellate
jurisdiction over High Court decisions in constitutional matters.
The Federal Court represented a step toward judicial autonomy. It was composed of
Indian judges and functioned within the Indian legal and cultural framework. However, its
powers were limited, and appeals still lay with the Privy Council until the Abolition of the
Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949, which marked the end of its authority over Indian
matters.
The Privy Council’s legacy is mixed. While it brought legal certainty and developed a
corpus of precedents, its colonial bias and inaccessibility alienated the masses. Nevertheless,
it laid the groundwork for India’s modern Supreme Court, which inherited many of its
procedural features and legal principles.
Q7. Evaluate the process of codification in British India with special reference to racial
discrimination, merits, and demerits.
Answer:
The codification of laws in British India was a deliberate and systematic effort by the
colonial administration to bring uniformity, clarity, and efficiency to the Indian legal
system. Beginning with the Charter Act of 1833 and the formation of the First Law
Commission, this process continued into the 20th century and resulted in the creation of
landmark codes such as the Indian Penal Code (1860), Code of Civil Procedure (1859,
revised 1908), Indian Contract Act (1872), and Indian Evidence Act (1872).
Merits of Codification:
1. Uniformity of Laws: Codified laws replaced the scattered and inconsistent
application of customs and religious texts. This brought predictability and
stability to the legal system.
2. Clarity and Accessibility: Codified statutes were clearer and more concise,
making the law more understandable for judges, lawyers, and the educated
public.
3. Judicial Efficiency: With clear laws, the scope for arbitrary decisions reduced,
leading to a more efficient judicial process.
4. Foundation for Modernization: Codification introduced Western legal ideas,
promoting a rational, secular, and egalitarian legal order.
Demerits of Codification:
1. Disregard for Indian Customs: Codified laws often ignored or overrode local
customs and social practices, creating a disconnect with the ground realities.
2. Static Nature: Codification often froze laws in time, preventing them from
evolving with society.
3. Over-reliance on English Models: The law was modeled on English statutes and
legal philosophy, which sometimes clashed with Indian societal norms and
values.
Racial Discrimination in Legal Application:
While laws were codified uniformly, their application was not always equitable. British
officers and European settlers often received preferential treatment, especially in criminal
trials. The legal profession and higher judiciary were initially dominated by Europeans,
limiting Indian participation.
Even within laws, certain procedural protections were stronger for Europeans. For
example, trials involving Europeans often required them to be judged by British judges or
juries. Such practices institutionalized racial hierarchy in legal proceedings.
Despite this, the codification process had long-term benefits. It created the legal
infrastructure that post-independence India retained and expanded. Indian lawyers and
judges gradually mastered the codified legal system, using it as a tool for nationalist and
reformist causes.
In conclusion, while codification brought modernization and structure to Indian law, it also
reinforced racial and colonial hierarchies. Its legacy is a blend of progress and prejudice—
one that still influences India’s legal system today.
UNIT – III: Legal Profession and Education
Q8. Trace the evolution of the legal profession in India from the Mayor’s Courts to the
High Courts. Mention key legislations and committees.
Answer:
The legal profession in India underwent significant transformation under British rule,
evolving from informal beginnings to a structured, regulated profession.
The earliest form of legal representation appeared with the establishment of Mayor’s
Courts in Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras in 1726. These courts allowed parties to engage
"attorneys" or "advocates", but there were no formal qualifications or regulations
governing these practitioners.
With the establishment of the Supreme Courts in the Presidency Towns (starting with
Calcutta in 1774), the legal profession became more formal. The Supreme Court had a
roster of barristers from England and advocates or vakils trained in India. However, entry
into this profession was highly regulated and generally restricted to Europeans or
Christians initially.
In the Mufassil regions, the Company’s Adalats employed native pleaders or vakils, who
were not always formally educated in law but were familiar with customs, languages, and
local practices. This created a dual legal profession—barristers in Presidency towns and
vakils in rural courts.
The Legal Practitioners Act of 1846 was the first to address the lack of regulation. It
permitted Indians to practice in the courts of the Company and abolished racial and
religious restrictions. It also required some level of examination or certification.
The Legal Practitioners Act of 1879 further regulated the profession by creating categories
of legal professionals—advocates, vakils, attorneys—and laying down rules for their
enrolment and conduct. However, it still maintained distinctions in hierarchy, especially
between those trained in England and those in India.
The Chamier Committee (1913–14), chaired by Justice Chamier, recommended reforms to
unify the profession and emphasized better legal education and discipline. The Indian Bar
Committee of 1951, chaired by S.R. Das, proposed the abolition of this hierarchical
structure and the creation of a unified profession under the Advocates Act.
In summary, the legal profession in India evolved from unregulated beginnings to a
structured and codified body. Despite early discrimination, Indian lawyers eventually
became powerful voices in the freedom struggle and helped shape modern India’s
constitutional vision.
Q9. Discuss the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. How did it unify and regulate
the legal profession in India?
Answer:
The Advocates Act, 1961 was a landmark legislation that aimed to restructure, unify, and
regulate the legal profession in India. Before its enactment, the legal profession was
fragmented into various categories—advocates, vakils, pleaders, and attorneys—depending
on the court and the practitioner’s qualifications. This hierarchical and colonial structure
was replaced by a unified system under the Act.
The Act was enacted based on the recommendations of the All India Bar Committee (1951)
headed by S.R. Das, which sought to standardize the profession and establish a national-
level governing structure.
Key Provisions:
1. Creation of the Bar Council of India (BCI):
The Act established the Bar Council of India as the apex regulatory body for the
legal profession. It is responsible for:
o Setting standards of legal education.
o Framing rules for professional conduct.
o Disciplinary control over advocates.
o Promoting law reform and legal awareness.
2. State Bar Councils:
Each state has its own Bar Council. These councils enroll advocates, maintain the
roll of legal practitioners, conduct elections for office bearers, and handle
disciplinary matters at the state level.
3. Single Category of 'Advocate':
The Act abolished earlier classifications like vakils, pleaders, and attorneys.
Everyone enrolled under the Act is called an "Advocate", creating a uniform
designation across the country.
4. Right to Practice:
Once enrolled with a State Bar Council, an advocate has the right to practice in any
court across India, including the Supreme Court (after qualifying through the
Advocate-on-Record exam for the SC).
5. Disciplinary Mechanism:
The Act provides for Disciplinary Committees at both state and national levels to
deal with cases of professional misconduct. Decisions of the State Bar Council can be
appealed before the BCI.
6. Legal Education and Standards:
The BCI is responsible for setting standards for legal education in collaboration
with universities and law schools. It approves law degrees and conducts inspections
to ensure quality.
Impact and Significance:
• Unification of Profession: The Act unified and streamlined the fragmented
colonial legal system into a single, cohesive profession.
• Improved Regulation: With clear disciplinary procedures and educational
standards, the profession became more organized and accountable.
• Empowerment of Indian Lawyers: By removing colonial hierarchies, it paved the
way for Indian lawyers to gain national recognition and professional dignity.
Challenges:
Despite its strengths, the Act faces criticism for:
• Delays in disciplinary proceedings.
• Inadequate enforcement of ethics.
• Poor oversight of legal education, especially private law colleges.
Nevertheless, the Advocates Act of 1961 remains the cornerstone of the Indian legal
profession, providing the structural and regulatory framework that governs lawyers even
today.
Q10. Explain the development of law reporting in India. What is the significance of
precedent and its evolution from 1773 to 1950?
Answer:
Law reporting refers to the systematic publication of court decisions, which form the basis
for legal precedent. In common law systems like India’s, precedents play a vital role, as
decisions by higher courts are binding on lower courts. The evolution of law reporting in
India closely aligns with the development of the judiciary.
Early Phase (Pre-1773):
Before formal courts were established, there was no structured law reporting. Decisions
were based on customs, religious laws, and oral traditions. There was no record-keeping or
reporting of judicial outcomes.
Supreme Court Era (Post-1773):
With the establishment of the Supreme Court at Calcutta in 1774, judicial decisions began
to gain legal authority. However, there was no official system of law reporting. Lawyers
and judges maintained private notes and shared important rulings informally.
Mid-19th Century Developments:
• Private reporters began publishing law reports, like Morton’s Reports and
Sutherland’s Reports, but they lacked consistency.
• The lack of authentic and standardized reports led to confusion and conflicting
interpretations.
Establishment of Official Law Reporting (1861 onwards):
The turning point came with the establishment of High Courts in 1861, which increased the
need for systematic law reporting.
• In 1875, the Indian Law Reports (ILR) system was introduced. Each High Court
had its own official series, like ILR Calcutta, ILR Bombay, etc.
• These reports were comprehensive and authenticated by the judiciary.
• They helped develop consistent case law and facilitated the doctrine of stare
decisis—the principle that precedents are binding.
Privy Council and Federal Court Reports:
• Judgments of the Privy Council were published in Law Reports – Indian Appeals
(LR-IA) and became binding on Indian courts.
• After the Federal Court of India was established in 1937, its rulings were also
regularly reported and began forming a domestic body of precedents.
Significance of Law Reporting:
• Judicial Consistency: Law reports ensured that courts followed established
decisions, reducing arbitrariness.
• Development of Common Law: Reported judgments contributed to the creation
of Indian jurisprudence.
• Legal Education: Law students and professionals relied on case law for learning
and practice.
• Rule of Law: Law reporting promoted transparency, accountability, and public
access to judicial decisions.
In conclusion, the evolution of law reporting in India from 1773 to 1950 played a vital role
in the transition from a customary system to a modern rule-based legal system grounded in
precedent.
UNIT – IV: Constitutional History
Q11. Analyze the key features and significance of the Government of India Act, 1919.
What were its shortcomings?
Answer:
The Government of India Act, 1919, also known as the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms, was
a significant constitutional reform initiated by the British Government. It marked a shift
toward partial self-governance for Indians, in response to growing demands for political
autonomy after World War I.
Key Features:
1. Introduction of Dyarchy in Provinces:
o Provincial subjects were divided into ‘reserved’ and ‘transferred’
categories.
o Reserved subjects (like police, finance, and law) were controlled by
British officials.
o Transferred subjects (like education, agriculture, and public health) were
managed by Indian ministers responsible to elected legislatures.
2. Bicameral Legislature at the Centre:
o Creation of a bicameral Central Legislature with a Council of State
(Upper House) and Legislative Assembly (Lower House).
o Although members were partially elected, the Governor-General
retained overriding powers.
3. Expansion of Franchise:
o A limited number of Indians were allowed to vote, based on property,
education, and income criteria.
o Despite being a step forward, it left out the vast majority of the
population.
4. Formation of Public Service Commission:
o Established to oversee recruitment to the Indian Civil Service, though
still under British control.
5. Separation of Provincial and Central Budgets:
o Financial independence was increased at the provincial level.
Significance:
• First attempt at introducing responsible government in the provinces.
• Gave Indians ministerial responsibility in selected areas.
• Laid the groundwork for further constitutional reforms.
• Recognized India as an integral part of the British Empire, yet acknowledged its
right to self-governance in principle.
Shortcomings:
• Dyarchy was confusing and ineffective. British officials retained real power
while Indian ministers were often undermined.
• The franchise was extremely limited, excluding the majority of Indians.
• No real power was given to the central legislature or Indian ministers.
• The system failed to satisfy nationalist aspirations, leading to protests and the
launch of the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–22).
In conclusion, while the Government of India Act, 1919, was a progressive step in theory, it
failed in practice due to limited devolution of power and continued colonial dominance. It
served more as a testing ground than a meaningful step toward full self-governance.
Q12. Discuss the main provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. How did it
pave the way for India’s constitutional development?
Answer:
The Government of India Act, 1935 was the most comprehensive and significant
constitutional reform introduced by the British in colonial India. Spanning 321 Sections
and 10 Schedules, it aimed to provide a federal structure and introduce provincial
autonomy, although full implementation never occurred.
Main Provisions:
1. Establishment of All-India Federation:
o Envisaged a federation consisting of British Indian provinces and princely
states.
o Though offered to princely states, most did not join, so the federation
never came into existence.
2. Provincial Autonomy:
o Dyarchy was abolished at the provincial level.
o Provinces were given autonomous powers, and ministers were
responsible to elected legislatures.
3. Introduction of Dyarchy at the Centre:
o Paradoxically, dyarchy was introduced at the central level, splitting
powers between British executive authority and Indian representatives.
4. Bicameral Federal Legislature:
o Central legislature consisted of a Federal Assembly and Council of
States.
o Members were partly elected and partly nominated.
5. Creation of Reserve Bank of India (RBI):
o The RBI was established in 1935 for monetary regulation and financial
control.
6. Federal Court:
o A Federal Court of India was established in 1937 to settle disputes
between provinces and interpret the constitution.
7. Extension of Franchise:
o Approximately 10% of the population could now vote, a modest
improvement over 1919.
Significance:
• For the first time, Indian provinces enjoyed full autonomy in internal matters,
laying the foundation for the federal structure of the Indian Constitution.
• The Act influenced several aspects of the Indian Constitution of 1950, including
bicameralism, federalism, and emergency powers.
• It provided a constitutional framework that allowed the Congress to form
ministries in 1937, though these resigned in 1939 over World War II.
Criticism and Shortcomings:
• The Act retained British supremacy, especially through the Governor-General's
discretionary powers.
• The central federation was never realized.
• Dyarchy at the centre was confusing and impractical.
• Despite being the longest constitutional document of its time, it lacked
democratic legitimacy.
In conclusion, the Government of India Act, 1935, though flawed and only partially
implemented, was a crucial milestone in India’s constitutional journey, laying much of the
structural foundation for the Constitution of India.
Let me know if you'd like all these compiled as a document or need summaries/notes for
quick revision.
Subject: Legal History – Long Answer Questions and Answers
UNIT – I: Evolution of Law and Legal Institutions
Q1. Discuss the development of personal laws in India during the colonial period. How did
British policy shape Hindu and Muslim personal laws?
[Answer content as provided in previous messages.]
Q2. Examine the development of law in the Presidency Towns. How did the British legal
institutions evolve in Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta?
[Answer content as provided.]
Q3. Trace the development of civil law in the Mufassil areas. Emphasize the role of Justice,
Equity, and Good Conscience.
[Answer content as provided.]
UNIT – II: Codification of Laws
Q4. Analyze the Charter of 1833 and the work of the First Law Commission. How did it
influence the codification of Indian laws?
[Answer content as provided.]
Q5. Discuss the establishment of the High Courts in 1861. How did they differ from the
earlier Supreme and Sadar Adalats?
[Answer content as provided.]
Q6. Examine the role and functioning of the Privy Council and the Federal Court in India.
Critically appraise the legacy of the Privy Council.
[Answer content as provided.]
Q7. Evaluate the process of codification in British India with special reference to racial
discrimination, merits, and demerits.
[Answer content as provided.]
UNIT – III: Legal Profession and Education
Q8. Trace the evolution of the legal profession in India from the Mayor’s Courts to the
High Courts. Mention key legislations and committees.
[Answer content as provided.]
Q9. Discuss the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. How did it unify and regulate the
legal profession in India?
[Answer content as provided.]
Q10. Explain the development of law reporting in India. What is the significance of
precedent and its evolution from 1773 to 1950?
[Answer content as provided.]
UNIT – IV: Constitutional History
Q11. Analyze the key features and significance of the Government of India Act, 1919. What
were its shortcomings?
[Answer content as provided.]
Q12. Discuss the main provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. How did it pave
the way for India’s constitutional development?
[Answer content as provided.]
