Ilbert Bill of 1883: Background, Controversy and Outcomes

The Ilbert Bill of 1883 was Lord Ripon‘s most controversial reform and an important event in British India’s colonial history. This bill was introduced by Sir Courtenay Ilbert, the Law Member of the Viceroy’s Council under Lord Ripon’s administration, and aimed to remove racial discrimination in the Indian judicial system. However, after the Bill was announced, Europeans strongly opposed it, ultimately forcing Lord Ripon to amend it. The Ilbert Bill controversy showed that during British rule in India, there was apartheid (discrimination based on skin colour) between whites and Indians and that the judicial system of the time was biased and unfair.

Ilbert Bill Background

• Until the introduction of the Ilbert Bill by Lord Ripon, according to the Criminal Procedure Code, only European judges could try cases where Europeans were accused in criminal cases. No Indian magistrate or session judge could try their cases. Needless to say, this practice was extremely discriminatory and racist. During Lord Ripon’s time, many senior and experienced native officials held high positions in the judiciary through the Covenanted Service. However, merely because of being Indian and due to their skin colour, they could not try cases involving white defendants.
• In rural areas (referred to as “mofussil”), the number of European judges and magistrates was very limited. As a result, plantation owners (planters) would often physically assault or even kill local people, but due to the absence of adequate judicial oversight in these rural regions, they would not face proper punishment for their actions. European magistrates usually released the criminal with a lesser sentence.
• Behari Lal Gupta, the current Presidency Magistrate in Calcutta, drew the government’s attention to this discriminatory law. Lord Ripon, realising the injustice and discrimination in this situation, ordered his Law Secretary, Sir Courtenay Peregrine Ilbert, to prepare a bill. Ilbert prepared a draft law called the ‘Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill.’ This draft law was passed on February 9, 1883, known as the Ilbert Bill. The bill stated that district magistrates or session judges could now try European defendants in criminal cases. When the bill came up for discussion in the Viceroy’s Legislative Council, Europeans erupted in intense anger.

European Opposition to the Ilbert Bill

• The European community in India, especially the planter owners and English barristers of the Calcutta High Court, strongly protested against the Ilbert Bill. They were upset that Indian judges would gain equal status. In their view, Indian judges were not qualified enough to try Europeans. The planter class was particularly accustomed to physically abusing Indian employees and workers. Now they feared that native magistrates would punish them for these crimes. The ‘Spectator‘ magazine strongly condemned the Ilbert Bill. Even ‘The Times‘ and Britain’s famous ‘Englishman‘ newspaper criticized this bill.
• Current Calcutta High Court judge JHA Branson formed the Defence Association for the safety of Europeans. Europeans raised one and a half lakh rupees to resist the Ilbert Bill. Calcutta’s barrister Millar, Branson, passed severe resolutions in meetings called against Ripon and demanded the British government recall him. Some radical Europeans even conspired to capture Ripon and send him back home by ship.

Indian Support for the Ilbert Bill

• The Europeans’ strong protest against the Ilbert Bill opened the eyes of educated Indians. The protest movement clearly showed how low Europeans regarded Indians. English newspapers had mocked Indian religious beliefs. This racial arrogance, racism, and imperialistic mindset made educated Indians aware. They realized how hollow the British claims of establishing justice and equal rights in India were.
• Surendranath Banerjee and Lalmohan Ghosh opposed the opposition to the Ilbert Bill. Through the establishment of the ‘Indian Association’ in 1876, he travelled to various cities in India and built massive public opinion against the rejection of the Ilbert Bill. Even the poet Hemchandra opposed the rejection of this bill in his satirical poem “Never Never“, and also said that all the protests of the Indians were ultimately in vain. Besides, the activities of the Europeans were strongly condemned in the newspapers ‘Amrita Bazar Patrika‘ and ‘Bengalee.’

You can also read about Simon Commission 1927: Objectives, Recommendations, Impact.

Outcomes of Ilbert Bill Controversy

• All Indian protests failed in the face of European opposition. Due to intense European protest and agitation, the British government amended the bill. The amended bill stated that Indian judges could now try European offenders but would need to be assisted by a jury. The majority of this jury was European, as 7 out of 12 jurors were European. Neither side was satisfied with this amendment to the bill. As a result, educated Indians began to lose their illusions about British rule.
• According to historian Dr Sarvepalli Gopal, “Educated Indians learned from the announcement of the Ilbert Bill that a pro-India ruler like Ripon was incapable of doing justice to the people of India. Because the English in India harboured intense hatred toward Indians. No viceroy would be able to accomplish anything by suppressing them. Indians would have to earn their own rights. From the Ilbert Bill Controversy, Indians realized that only through organized movement could they influence government policies and actions, and without achieving independence, it was impossible for India to gain national dignity.”

Ilbert Bill FAQs