• Amandeep Singh Sekhon

The trial of Bhagat Singh and his 24 associates, which is known as Lahore Conspiracy Case , is one of the landmark trials of India. Bhagat Singh and his comrades made constant efforts to use this trial for the purpose of propaganda. Docks, for them were a platform, from which they addressed the nation. The epic hunger strike of Bhagat Singh and his comrades was one of the factors that kept this trial alive in the popular imagination of India for long time. Twice did, Bhgat Singh and his comrades resorted to hunger strike, for the betterment of the plight of political prisoners. During the course of first hunger strike which they resorted to from 15th June 1929 to 4th October 1930 , a juncture came when the British Government of India tried to make a very draconian change in the Criminal Procedure Code of India. Had they succeeded in it, the whole Criminal Procedure would have been jeopardized. The entire opposition in the Legislative Assembly put up a united resistance and defeated the Bill, which was officially named Criminal Law Amendment Bill, but was popularly known as the Hunger Strike Bill. It was so known because the public rightly perceived this Bill to have been brought about, to break the hunger strike of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. But it actually intended far more damages, i.e. changes in the Criminal Procedure, which were correctly sensed by India leaders and they forced Government to withdraw the Bill. The Bill intended to change section 540 of Criminal Procedure Code, which would have made it possible for prosecution to conduct a trial in absence of the accused, if in the opinion of the court his absence was the result of his willing action. Bhagat Singh and his comrades were subsequently tried in their absence, because special provisions were made for Lahore Conspiracy Case through Ordinance III of 1930. Had the Government succeeded in getting the Hunger Strike Bill passed, the exception which was made through the Ordinance III of 1930, would have become a norm and Government could have dispensed with the attendance of accused in any case where the agitating behaviour of the accused could be perceived as a hindrance in trial. Whether the cause of agitation was justified or not, would not have mattered. The cause of the hunger strike of Bhagat Singh and his comrades was fully justified. They were demanding humane living conditions for political prisoners and an end to racial discrimination in the Indian jails. During the debate in Legislative Assembly the Government members tried their best to prove that hunger strike of Bhagat Singh and his comrades was just a dilatory tactic to avoid justice and that the Bill an urgent requirement of situation. But the Indian leaders overwhelmingly denied this allegation and firmly held that Bhagat Singh and his comrades were fighting for a genuine cause and were not adopting any dilatory tactics. They opposed such sweeping changes, as proposed by the Bill, in the Criminal Justice System on the basis of a single case.

Legislative Assembly Debate on Hunger Strike of Bhagat Singh and his Comrades

"Legislative Assembly Debate on Hunger Strike of Bhagat Singh and his Comrades", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.6, Issue 3, page no.653-663, March-2019, Available :http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1903M77.pdf

"Legislative Assembly Debate on Hunger Strike of Bhagat Singh and his Comrades", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org | UGC and issn Approved), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.6, Issue 3, page no. pp653-663, March-2019, Available at : http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1903M77.pdf