राधाबिनोद पाल (मृत्यु- 10 जनवरी 1967)

January 10, 2017

राधाबिनोद पाल ( जन्म-27 जनवरी 1886; मृत्यु- 10 जनवरी 1967) टोक्यो, जापान युद्ध अपराध न्यायाधिकरण में भारतीय न्यायाधीश थे, जिन्होंने अन्य न्यायाधीशों के साथ यह दावा करते हुए असहमति जताई कि मुकदमा युद्ध के विजेताओं द्वारा प्रतिकार में एक अभ्यास था और जापान के युद्ध के समय के नेता दोषी नहीं थे।


राधाबिनोद का जन्म 27 जनवरी 1886 को हुआ था।
कोलकाता के प्रेसिडेन्सी कॉलेज तथा कोलकाता विश्वविद्यालय से क़ानून की शिक्षा पूर्ण करके वे इसी विश्वविद्यालय में 1923 से 1936 तक अध्यापक रहे।
इन्हें 1941 में कोलकाता उच्च न्यायालय में न्यायाधीश नियुक्त किया गया।
जब उन्होंने द्वितीय विश्वयुद्ध के बाद जापान के विरुद्ध ‘टोक्यो ट्रायल्स’ नामक मुकदमा शुरू किया तब उन्हें इसमें न्यायाधीश बनाया गया।
भारत और जापान के संबंधों में पाल के योगदान को आज भी याद किया जाता है।
युद्ध अपराधों के मुकदमे के बाद, उनको संयुक्त राष्ट्र अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विधि आयोग में चुना गया, जहां उन्होंंने 1952 से 1966 तक सेवा की।


Radhabinod Pal (27 January 1886 – 10 January 1967) was an Indian Bengali jurist, who was a member of the United Nations' International Law Commission from 1952 to 1966. He was one of the Asian judges appointed to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the "Tokyo Trials" of Japanese war crimes committed during the Second World War.Among all the judges of the tribunal, he was the only one who submitted a judgment which insisted all defendants were not guilty. The Yasukuni Shrine and the Kyoto Ryozen Gokoku Shrine have monuments specially dedicated to Judge Pal.Radhabinod Pal was born in 1886 in the small village of Salimpur, undivided Nadia, presently Kushtia District, now a part of Bangladesh.


He studied mathematics and constitutional law at Presidency College, Calcutta (now Kolkata), and the Law College of the University of Calcutta.


Pal was a major contributor to the formulation of the Indian Income Tax Act of 1922. The British Government of India appointed Pal as a legal advisor in 1927. He worked as professor at the Law College of the University of Calcutta from 1923 till 1936. Pal became a judge of the Calcutta High Court in 1941 and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calcutta in 1944.


He was asked to represent India as a member of the tribunal of judges officiating at the Tokyo Trials in 1946. In deliberations with judges from 10 other countries, Pal was highly critical of the prosecution's use of the legal concept of conspiracy in the context of pre-war decisions by Japanese officials. He also maintained that the tribunal should not retrospectively apply (nulla poena sine lege) the new concept of Class A war crimes – waging aggressive (also known as crimes against peace) – and crimes against humanity (that had already been used ex post facto at the Nuremberg Trials). Hence Pal dissented from the tribunal's verdicts of guilt in the cases of defendants charged with Class A war crimes. His reasoning also influenced the judges representing the Netherlands and France, and all three of these judges issued dissenting opinions. However, under the rules of the tribunal, all verdicts and sentences were decided by a majority of the presiding judges.


Pal was the father of nine daughters (Shanti Rani, Asha Rani, Leela Rani, Bela Rani, Nilima, Roma Rani, Renu Kana, Lakshmi Rani and Smriti Kana) and five sons (Prasanta Kumar, Pradyot Kumar, Pronab Kumar, Pratip Bijoy and Pratul Kumar). One son, Pronab Kumar Pal, also became a lawyer (a barrister), as did a son-in-law, Debi Prasad Pal (who also served as a judge of the Calcutta High Court and Indian Minister of State for Finance).


Judge Pal's lone dissenting opinion, that the Japanese soldiers were only following orders and that the acts committed by them weren't illegal in an indictable sense, was dismissed by the West as a biased judgement by another Asian judge. Pal wrote that the Tokyo Trials were an exercise in victor's justice and that the Allies were equally culpable in acts such as strategic bombings of civilian targets. In 1966, Pal visited Japan and said that he had admired Japan from an early age for being the only Asian nation that "stood up against the West". Regardless of his personal opinions about Japan, he deemed it appropriate to dissent from the judgement of his "learned brothers" to embody his love for absolute truth and justice.