Skip to main content

Main reasons for failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan, 1946

 Main reasons for failure of Cabinet Mission Plan, 1946

The Cabinet Mission Plan, 1946 arrived on March 24, with the objective to make Independent India and to make a constitution for the undivided India. It spends 3weks to discuss with various political leaders and came with its own recommendation.  Which got rejected by the Congress and Muslim leagues. For several reasons the Cabinet Mission Plan got rejected. Let’s know them one by one.

Reasons for failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan,1946 are as follows-

  • The Congress party wanted a strong centre with minimum powers for the provinces.

  •  The Muslim league wanted strong political safeguards for the Muslim like  parity legislature.

  • Since both parties had many ideological differences and couldn’t find common grounds. the mission came off with its own set of proposal in 1946.

  •  The Congress was not keen on the idea of the groupings of provinces on the basis of Hindu and Muslim  majority and vying Control on the centre.  It was also against the idea of a weak centre. The Muslim league did not want any changes to the proposal.

  • , since the plan was not accepted,  a new mission plan was proposed by the mission in June 1946. The plan proposed the division of India into a Hindu majority and  a Muslim majority, later To be renamed as Pakistan. He list of princely state also made that could either join the union or remain independent.

  •  The Congress party under Jawaharlal Nehru do not accept the second plan. instead offered he agreed to be a part of the constituent assembly.

  • The viceroy invited 14 men to form the interim government.  There were five from the government, five From the Muslim league, one Of each representing Sikh, Parsi, Indian Christian and schedule cost community.

  •  Both the league and the government given the right to nominate the viceroy to the interim government. The Congress Nominet jacket Hussain as one of the members to which the league objected saying only had represented Indian Muslims and no other parties. The Muslim league did not take part in it.

  •  The Congress leaders entered the viceroy’s interim council and thus Nehru headed the interim government. The new government began the task for framing constitution for the country.

  • Congress governments form in most provinces including North West Frontier Province (NWFP). In Bengal and Sindh the Muslim league forms the government.

  • Jinnah and league objected to the new central Government. He gilded do edited for Pakistan and urged Muslims to demand Pakistan by any means. He called for direct action in 16 August in 1946.

  • These all spread to wide communal rioting in the country. 5000 people were being killed on the first day in Calcutta. Communal riot spread to many other areas notably Noakhali and Bihar.

  • There was a call for the partitioning on a country on the accounts of Riots. Sardar Ballav vai Patel was one of the 1st Congress leader to acknowledge the inevitability of the partition as a means to stop the brutal violence. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree