Criminalizing Political Conversation: The Trial of the Pallichitra (1910)

Abstract

This chapter examines a seditious libel trial that took place at a time when censorship had become the norm. Articles that interpreted government action in much the way the Shakti does here were legion, bringing visibility to the illiberalism of the colonial regime. Coming as the trial of the Pallichitra did on the heels of repeated prosecutions of radical newspapers such as the Yugantar, Bande Mataram, and Kal,² it did not attract the same level of attention as did the latter set of periodicals (legally defined as newspapers). The Native Newspaper Reports (NNRs) of Bombay, the United Provinces, and Bengal report interest only in the participation of the Indian judge, who was appointed to the appeal process because of a disagreement between the two original appellate judges.³ This was a trial without a jury.⁴ Indeed, Justice Mukherjee emerges as something of a figure of resistance, participating in a partial overturning of the decision, exerting the rights allowed him by the law to rule on all aspects of the original trial (and not just the point of contention between the other two appellate judges), and problematizing translation much more than had been done in the original trial or, indeed, in the high court appeal.

For the past two years almost every week we have been hearing of one repressive measure or another being resorted to by Government. Either editors are prosecuted on a charge of sedition or some new harsh Act is put on the statute book or presses are forfeited and securities called for from proprietors of old newspapers when making fresh declarations. The order of the Bombay Government prohibiting some thirty publications is one of the series of the repressive acts of Government. The Bombay Government seem to be more active in taking such measures.

—Shakti, 16 April 1910, Bombay NNR, week ending 23 Apr. 1910, para. no. 24¹