Reasons for Refusing to Attend the Court
MISTER MAGISTRATE
After going through your order dated 4 February, 1930, which was published in The Civil and Military Gazette, it appears necessary that we explain to you the reason of our boycott of the court.
It is wrong to say that we have boycotted the courts of the British government. Today, we are going to the court of Mr. Louis who is hearing the case initiated against us under Section 22 of the Jail Act. We had presented our problems and difficulties in our bail application before you, but it still remains unconsidered.
Our comrades under trial belong to different and distant corner of the country. Therefore, they should be given the facility of meeting their well wishers and sympathizers. Shri B.K. Dutt gave an application to meet Miss Lajjawati, and Shri Kamal Nath Tewari also wanted to meet someone, but were neither their relatives nor their lawyers. Even after securing their authorization, they were not allowed to meet. It is quite clear from this that the under trials are not given the facilities for their defense. Not merely this, Comrade Kranti Kumar, who was doing very useful work for our defense committee and was also providing us with things of daily use, has been imprisoned on a fabricated charge. It has come to our knowledge that when the fabricated charge of bringing bullets in the sauce, could not be proved against him, under Section 124 A in Gurudaspur which is distant from Lahore.
I myself cannot keep a whole time lawyer: therefore I wanted that my trusted friends should observe the court proceedings by being present there, but they were denied permission without any explicit reason, and only Lala Amardas, Advocate, has been given a seat.
We can never like this drama acted in the name of justice, because we do not get any facility or benefit for defending ourselves. One more serious complaint is against non-available of newspapers. Under trial prisoners cannot be treated like convicted prisoners. We should be given at least one newspaper regularly. We want one newspaper also for those who do not know English. Therefore, as a protest, we are returning even the English. Therefore, as a protest, we are returning even the English daily Tribune. We decided to boycott the court on 29 January, 1930, because of these complaints. We will rejoin the proceedings when these inconveniences are removed.
Yours
etc. etc.
This work is in the public domain in India because it originates from India and its term of copyright has expired. According to The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, all documents enter the public domain after 60 years counted from the beginning of the following calendar year after the death of the author (i.e. as of 2024, prior to January 1, 1964). Film, sound recordings, government works, anonymous works, and works first published over 60 years after the death of the author are protected for 60 years after publication.
Works by authors who died before 1941 entered the public domain after 50 years (before 1991) and copyright has not been restored.
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in India on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of India having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
The critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1941.
The author died in 1931. This work was published in 1930.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1931, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 92 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse