Petition questioning validity of 142-year-old provision dismissed

CHENNAI: A writ petition, which questioned the validity of a 142-year-old provision in law and “practically challenged the establishment of the Madras High Court,” has been dismissed as being devoid of merit.

A Division Bench, comprising Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar, was passing orders on a petition filed by K.V. Ananthakrushnan, who sought to declare as null and void the amended Letters Patent dated December 28, 1865.

Letters Patent, which was a law in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, empowered the chartered courts to exercise jurisdiction under Admiralty matters, testamentary and intestate, matrimonial cases, original side, etc.

The petitioner said certain phrases used in the Letters Patent showed the Queen in command. It was a symbol of British hegemony. Its preamble “is the dictate of a monarch and it is no more relevant or valid to India.”

Describing the Letters Patent as a “peculiar power given to the Crown,” the petitioner said it could not be construed as an existing law. Instead, it ran counter to the Preamble and philosophy of the Constitution of India.

Assistant Solicitor-General P. Wilson, representing the Union of India, said the Letters Patent would continue to be in force unless its provisions are inconsistent with any part of the Constitution.

“No scope for doubt”

Additional Government Pleader D. Srinivasan, representing Madras High Court Registrar, said the petitioner proceeded on “hypothetical political philosophies,” and got carried away by assumed sentiments rather than sound reason of law.

“A law, which has been continued and is used for day-to-day administration of justice in the State by the High Court, cannot be doubted as dead law.”

The Bench, before passing the order, said the Madras High Court was established by the amended Letters Patent dated December 28, 1865. “The petitioner has practically challenged the establishment of the High Court before the same court,” it observed.