Historic Legislative Assembly Session of 1926: A Push for Criminal Law Reforms
On Thursday, February 7, 1926, a landmark meeting of the Legislative Assembly in Lahore witnessed the introduction of several highly significant non-official Bills aimed at amending criminal law. The timing of these proposals, coming near the end of the members' tenure, raises questions about the delay, but there is unanimous agreement on the critical importance of the measures put forward.
Key Bills Proposed for Legal Overhaul
The session featured a series of Bills designed to address long-standing issues in the criminal justice system. Sir Hari Singh Gour presented a Bill to repeal Part II of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, a move recommended by the Repressive Laws Committee to curb oppressive regulations.
Mr. Chanda introduced a Bill to amend Section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), requiring courts to explicitly state reasons for imposing death sentences, thereby enhancing transparency in capital punishment cases.
Mr. Amarnath Dutt proposed a Bill to repeal the Bengal Regulation of 1818 and incorporate provisions similar to the Habeas Corpus Act from England into the CrPC. This aims to protect individuals from unjust detention and secure personal liberty against arbitrary state actions.
Mr. Chetty brought forward a Bill to modify Section 144 of the CrPC, seeking to restrict the powers of magistrates and establish adequate safeguards to protect public rights during restrictive orders.
The Most Critical Proposal: Amending Section 124-A
Perhaps the most crucial of all was Mr. Rangaswami Iyengar's Bill to amend Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, often referred to as the prince of all repressive laws. This section had been a source of widespread criticism for its use in suppressing dissent, and the proposed amendment aimed to align it more closely with principles of justice and freedom.
From a public perspective, none of these measures required any justification. It is a literal truth that, had the people been able to influence legislation directly, most of these changes would have been implemented two decades earlier. The sole exception would have been unnecessary, as the Act in question would never have been enacted in the first place.
This legislative push in 1926 highlighted a growing demand for legal reforms to ensure fairness, transparency, and protection of civil liberties within the criminal justice framework.
