INDIAN RULERS AND THE LAW.

Otago Witness, Issue 3029, 3 April 1912, Page 43 (Supplement)

INDIAN RULERS AND THE LAW.

A DIVORCE SUIT WRIT. [From Our Own Correspondent.] LONDON, December 13. A curious application was made recently to Mr Justice Bargrave Dearie in the Divorce Court, in which H.H. the

Gaekwar of Baroda was the central figure. The Gaekwar is one of India's most enlightened rulers, thoroughly Westernised, and an aggressive critic of British rule. He has been cited as co-respondent in the case of Statliam versus Statham, and the question of jurisdiction was raised. In India all the ruling princes are above the law and can never be 6ued for any debts, however legal the claim may be. The Gaekwar, of course, refused service

of the writ this summer, and by the time it could be served on his solicitor the royai personage had returned to India. Mr Bayford, for the petitioner, asked for leave for substituted service of the divorce citation on the prince. He said that the question was whether the Gaekwar could say he was a ruling sovereign in an Indian State, and therefore exempt from the processes of this court. In a

previous case, Mighel versus the Sultan of Johore, it was held that there was no jurisdiction over an independent sovereign unless he submitted to the jurisdiction. A certificate from the Indian or Colonial Ollice was to be taken as to the 6tatus of any such sovereign. A RULING CHIEF. But the present case differed from that of the Sultan of Johore, said counsel. In

a certificate the Sultan was d.etribed ns an independent ruler. In the case of the Gaekwar. the Indian Office said his Highness was recognised by the Government of India as a ruling chief governing his own territories under the suzerainty of his Majesty the King. That certificate, counsel argued, was absolutely binding. The certificate added that his Highness was not treated as a subject of his

Majesty. The whole basis of it was the suzerainty of his Majesty over the State, and therefore over the ruler of that State, hi the case of the Sultan of Johore he was an absolutely independent ruler over an Indian State. Here the Gaekwar was the ruler of a State, but subject to the suzerainty of the English Crown. The 'aekwar must be treated as a foreigner, but then the question came : Was he also an absolutely independent ruler over an

independent State, owing no suzerainty'.' NOT A BRITISH SUBJECT. For the Gaekwar, Mr W. 0. Willis submitted that his client did not come within the jurisdiction of the court, and was entitled to be removed from the record altogether. The divorce citation should be cancelled, and his name should not be used as a party to the suit. The status

of the Gaekwar had been acted upon before by Mr Justice Lush in the King's Bench Division, after the Secretary of State for India had been communicated with. The result was that the writ in the action was set aside on the ground that no action could lie against his Highness because he was an Indian ruling sovereign over whom the court had no jurisdiction. The document supplied *■"> Mr Justice Lush by the India 'Office

■learly showed that the Gaekwar wa& a native prince under British suzerainty, but that the British did not treat his ter ritory as being part of British India Therefore, he was a foreign ruling prince, and the court had no jurisdiction over him. .Mr Bay ford remarked that the case was a charge of misconduct, and that damages .vere claimed against co-respondent.

Mr Willis added that the Gaekwar was > not a British subject. He was told that ; under the independent code native princ«e I were not suable by civil process unless \ the Indian Government gave ite consent, which it never gave. Therefore, if this i court gave judgment against the Gaekwar ! for damages, it could not be enforced. The judge promised to consider his derision.