In 2012, the Bombay High Court celebrated the 150th year of its existence. As one of three high courts first set up in colonial India in 1862, it functioned as a court of original and appellate jurisdiction during the British Raj for over 80 years, occupying the topmost rung of the judicial hierarchy in the all-important Bombay Presidency. Yet, remarkably little is known of how the court functioned during the colonial era. The historiography of the court is quite literally anecdotal. The most well known books written on the history of the court focus on humorous (at times, possibly apocryphal) stories about 'eminent' judges and 'great' lawyers, bordering on hagiography. Examining the backgrounds and lives of the 83 judges-Britons and Indians-who served on the Bombay High Court during the colonial era, and by exploring the court's colonial past, this book attempts to understand why British colonial institutions like the Bombay High Court flourished even after India became independent. In the process, this book will attempt to unravel complex changes which took place in Indian society, the legal profession, the law, and the legal culture during the colonial era.

A Distinct Judicial Power: The Origins of an Independent Judiciary, 1606-1787, by Scott Douglas Gerber, provides the first comprehensive critical analysis of the origins of judicial independence in the United States. Part I examines the political theory of an independent judiciary. Gerber begins chapter 1 by tracing the intellectual origins of a distinct judicial power from Aristotle's theory of a mixed constitution to John Adams's modifications of Montesquieu. Chapter 2 describes the debates during the framing and ratification of the federal Constitution regarding the independence of the federal judiciary. Part II, the bulk of the book, chronicles how each of the original thirteen states and their colonial antecedents treated their respective judiciaries. This portion, presented in thirteen separate chapters, brings together a wealth of information (charters, instructions, statutes, etc.) about the judicial power between 1606 and 1787, and sometimes beyond. Part III, the concluding segment, explores the influence the colonial and early state experiences had on the federal model that followed and on the nature of the regime itself. It explains how the political theory of an independent judiciary examined in Part I, and the various experiences of the original thirteen states and their colonial antecedents chronicled in Part II, culminated in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. It also explains how the principle of judicial independence embodied by Article III made the doctrine of judicial review possible, and committed that doctrine to the protection of individual rights.

In the United States, almost 90 percent of state judges have to run in popular elections to remain on the bench. In the past decade, this peculiarly American institution has produced vicious multi-million-dollar political election campaigns and high-profile allegations of judicial bias and misconduct. The People’s Courts traces the history of judicial elections and Americans’ quest for an independent judiciary—one that would ensure fairness for all before the law—from the colonial era to the present. In the aftermath of economic disaster, nineteenth-century reformers embraced popular elections as a way to make politically appointed judges less susceptible to partisan patronage and more independent of the legislative and executive branches of government. This effort to reinforce the separation of powers and limit government succeeded in many ways, but it created new threats to judicial independence and provoked further calls for reform. Merit selection emerged as the most promising means of reducing partisan and financial influence from judicial selection. It too, however, proved vulnerable to pressure from party politics and special interest groups. Yet, as Shugerman concludes, it still has more potential for protecting judicial independence than either political appointment or popular election. The People’s Courts shows how Americans have been deeply committed to judicial independence, but that commitment has also been manipulated by special interests. By understanding our history of judicial selection, we can better protect and preserve the independence of judges from political and partisan influence.

In this provocative work, Martin Shapiro proposes an original model for the study of courts, one that emphasizes the different modes of decision making and the multiple political roles that characterize the functioning of courts in different political systems.

This book takes a closer look at colonial despotism in early nineteenth-century India and argues that it resulted from Indians’ forum shopping, the legal practice which resulted in jurisdictional jockeying between an executive, the East India Company, and a judiciary, the King’s Court. Focusing on the collisions that took place in Bombay during the 1820s, the book analyses how Indians of various descriptions—peasants, revenue defaulters, government employees, merchants, chiefs, and princes—used the court to challenge the government (and vice versa) and demonstrates the mechanism through which the lawcourt hindered the government’s indirect rule, which relied on local Indian rulers in newly conquered territories. The author concludes that existing political anxiety justified the East India Company’s attempt to curtail the power of the court and strengthen their own power to intervene in emergencies through the renewal of the company’s charter in 1834. An insightful read for those researching Indian history and judicial politics, this book engages with an understudied period of British rule in India, where the royal courts emerged as sites of conflict between the East India Company and a variety of Indian powers.

This book is the first study of the development and decolonization of a British colonial high court in Africa. It traces the history of the High Court of Tanzania from its establishment in 1920 to the end of its institutional process of decolonization in 1971. This process involved disentangling the High Court from colonial state structures and imperial systems that were built on racial inequality while simultaneously increasing the independence of the judiciary and application of British judicial principles. Feingold weaves together the rich history of the Court with a discussion of its judges – both as members of the British Colonial Legal Service and as individuals – to explore the impacts and intersections of imperial policies, national politics, and individual initiative. Colonial Justice and Decolonization in the High Court of Tanzania is a powerful reminder of the crucial roles played by common law courts in the operation and legitimization of both colonial and post-colonial states.

A leading expert on Indian judiciary, George Gadbois offers a compelling biography of the Supreme Court of India, a powerful institution. Written and researched when he was a graduate student in the 1960s, this book provides the first comprehensive account of the Court’s foundation and early years. Gadbois opens with Hari Singh Gour’s proposal in 1921 to establish an indigenous ultimate court of appeal. After analyzing events preceding the Federal Court’s creation under the Government of India Act, 1935, Gadbois explores the Court’s largely overlooked role and record. He goes on to discuss the Constituent Assembly’s debates about Indian judiciary and the Supreme Court’s powers and jurisdiction under the Constitution. He pays particular attention to the history and practice of judicial appointments in India. In the book’s later chapters, Gadbois assesses the functioning of the Supreme Court during its first decade and a half. He critically analyzes its first decisions on free speech, equality and reservations, preventive detention, and the right to property. The book is an institutional tour de force beginning with the Federal Court’s establishment in December 1937, through the Supreme Court’s inauguration in January 1950, and until the death of Jawaharlal Nehru in May 1964.