The ordinance debate
FOR all practical purposes, the adjourned debate on the Bengal ordinance in the Legislative Assembly on Thursday was constituted by a more than ordinarily vigorous speech by Pandit Motilal Nehru and a feeble attempt at a reply to him by the Commerce Member. Nehru, indeed, appears to have been in his best form, and he made mincemeat of the government’s supposed case for the ordinance. The basis of that case, in the words of the Bengal Government, compared to whom there could be no higher or greater authority on the subject, was alleged “terrorism of witnesses and juries”, the alleged “failure of juries through fear to return verdicts in accordance with evidence”, the alleged “murder of witnesses or persons who have confessed” and the alleged “fear of witnesses to disclose facts within their knowledge”. These were the difficulties that were assumed by the government to make the ordinary law wholly inapplicable to this class of cases, and to render resort to some extraordinary and exceptional measure absolutely indispensable. By a brilliant analysis of the very cases cited on behalf of the government in justification of its position in the matter, Nehru conclusively showed that not one of them supported the assumption made by the government. “Where is the case,” he said, “where an approver has been murdered, where witnesses have failed to come forward, where juries have failed to return the verdict of guilty in spite of the existence of adequate evidence?”
