The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's affirmation of its power to issue the writ of habeas corpus and its interpretation of the jurisdiction of summary courts under the Government of India Act, 1921.

Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.

1. In this case we are of opinion that the Writ of Habeas Corpus must go. The matter is urgent, and therefore, we propose to direct the writ to go. The matter is also an important one, and it is desirable that our reasons should be put in writing and delivered in the form of a formal judgment hereafter. But, meanwhile the order of the Court will be that a writ do issue, addressed to the Jailor, Bellary Camp Jail, to this effect:

We command you that you have in the High Court of judicature at Madras, immediately after the receipt of this our Writ, the bodies of Erada Padinharedil Govindan Nayar and Erada Padinharedil Raman Nayar being taken and detained under your custody, as is said, together with the day and cause of their being taken and detained by whatsoever names they may be called therein, to undergo and receive all and singular such matters and things as our said Court shall then and there consider of concerning them in this behalf; and have you there then this our Writ.

2. After the production of the said prisoners in obedience to the writ issued by this Court on Monday the 1st day of May 1922,

ORDER

1. This is a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by two persons undergoing a sentence of 18 months for alleged participation in the Moplah rebellion. They were charged with rioting under Section 147 I P.C. an offence cognisable by the ordinary Courts. It was alleged that they had assisted the rebels in destroying a bridge. This they admitted, but stated that they were compelled to do so under threat of death. They alleged, owing to the trial being summary and taking place away from the scene of action and far from their homes, they were not in a position to substantiate this defence by evidence which they could have called if the trial had taken place under the ordinary law and in its proper place.

2. It is admitted that they were tried by a summary Magistrate appointed under Ordinance II of 1921 who held his Court at a place outside the area in which Martial Law was proclaimed, the alleged offence having been committed inside such area. Acting under the powers conferred by Section 72 of the Government of India Act, this Ordinance was made and promulgated by the Governor General. By it Martial Law was put in force in certain areas called - Administration areas, and by Section 6, summary Courts of criminal jurisdiction might be constituted in any administration area with summary powers of trial of certain minor offences connected with the rebellion. The Military Commander had power to direct cases to be tried by Summary Courts and to distribute the work among such Courts. By Section 7, no Summary Court can try any offence unless committed in the administration area in which such Court is established except as so provided, the ordinary criminal courts continued their functions.

3. From the decision of such Summary Courts there is no appeal and further by Section 16 of the Ordinance all powers of interference with such decision by writ of Habeas Corpus or otherwise is prohibited. It follows that if the court that tried the petitioners was a properly constituted court under the Ordinance we have no power to interfere. But in our judgment this was not a court properly constituted under the Ordinance for we can find no right at all to hold a summary court except in the martial law area, and by the words of the Ordinance the jurisdiction of these courts is local. Outside the area the ordinary rules of law prevail and there is nothing in the Ordinance to prevent this Court interfering with the decision of any court outside the area purporting to exercise a criminal jurisdiction which it does not possess. That this is the proper construction of the Ordinance seems to have been recognised by the Government of India after these convictions by Section 10 of the Ordinance 1921 promulgated on 11th November 1921. By that Section it was enacted: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time