Madhusudan_Das

126 Madhusudan Das:
for a particular Minister in a particular province 7 If the other Minister felt
uncomfortable to act in an honorary capacity he was probably right for
there was a demand throughout the country for parity between Ministers
and Executive Councillors in all respects and some Governors were even
accused of partiality towards the Executive Councillors, some of whom
were Europeans. If this was the problem in the country as a whole, Mr. Das
naturally had to fight against insunnountable hurdles. The readiness of
Mr. Das to accept a reduced salary compromised the moral values involved
in his demand for an honorary Ministership but he had to sacrifice his
principles to accommodate his colleague. After all, man is a social animal
and Mr. Das could not tear himself away from his colleague but his
bonafides are amply proved by his reiteration of the principle that he still
believed in the principle of an honorary Minister.
The position taken by Mr. Das was slightly confused by the other
part of his argument namely he should be allowed to continue as an
honorary Minister and permitted to practise at the Bar for his maintenance.
The office of a Minister was not an office of profit and the Act of 1919
permitted a Minister to continue as a member of the Legislative Council
even though a salary was attached to his office. The office of a Minister
carried the authority of His Majesty- the King-Emperor of India and top
Civil Servants miscalled judges and provincial Executive Officers
inappropriately called Magistrates were in charge of judicial
administration. All of them were subordinates of the Government and as
such of the Ministers. In the system of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, not
only justice should be done, the people must be made to feel that justice
is being done. When a Minister appears before a judge or a magistrate as
a legal practitioner, can there be the same assurance of justice being done
in the minds of the client against whom the Minister-Advocate holds the
brief ? Likewise, can the judges and the magistrates whose future
promotions in life might be dependent on the favours and goodwill of the
Minister-Advocate render justice freely and fearlessly in favour of the
adversary of the Minister-Advocate's client ? Often the King-Emperor
was the prosecutor in cognisable cases like arson, murder, rape, dacoity
etc. Can the Minister-Advocate take up brief against the King-Emperor
whom he serves as a Minister ? It is sometimes seen mat an Advocate-
General who is a retained lawyer of Government, holds the brief on behalf
of the Government and engages one of his own juniors or erstwhile juniors
on the other side so that both the sides are in the hands of the same