Judgement This was a petition by the Maharajah of Panna for special leave to appeal from the report of Commissioners appointed on November 5, 1901, by a resolution of the Government of India in the Foreign Department to inquire into the circumstances of the death within the limits of the Panna State of the petitioners uncle Rao Khuman Singh, and to afford to the petitioner an opportunity of freeing himself from the grave imputation that "Rao Khuman Singh had been poisoned by persons instigated thereto by him." It stated that the Commissioners were vested with powers to try any person other than the petitioner on any charge which might be presented against him, and in case of conviction to pass sentence according to the law of British India. It further alleged that five persons were charged with murder or conspiracy to murder; that one absconded, one was convicted and hanged, and three were acquitted; that no charge was brought against the petitioner; but that an inquiry into his conduct was combined with the trial of the accused, with the result that the Commissioners reported (Jan. 25, 1902) that the imputation against the petitioner was true—that he was a member of a conspiracy to murder his uncle. The Government resolved in the Foreign Department that this finding was correct, and deposed him from the chiefship of the Panna State. The petition submitted that the report of the Commissioners purported to be a conviction by a Court established by His Majestys Government and exercising jurisdiction conferred by the same authority; that no definite charge had been brought against him specifying what person or persons he instigated or conspired with, or when, where, or by what means he did so; that the investigation had been Law Rep. 31 Ind. App. 31 Ind. App. 239 ( 1903- 1904) Maharajah Madhava Singh v. Secretary of State 114 conducted as a collateral inquiry during the trial of five persons against whom definite charges had been brought, and except as regards one of them had not been established; that it had not been regulated by any recognised method of procedure, and that the view of the evidence had been accompanied by a finding that the petitioner had a very strong motive for getting rid of his uncle, which strong motive had been neither alleged nor proved; and it prayed for special leave to appeal from the report convicting him as aforesaid and from the order of the Viceroy confirming the same. Haldane, K.C., and Cowell, in support of the petition, contended that the Commissioners were a judicial body appointed under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (No. 21, s. 4), and that having regard to 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 41, s. 3, and 7 & 8 Viet. c. 69, s. 1, an appeal lay to the King in Council provided special leave was given. They contended also that the irregularities of the inquiry were a sufficient ground of leave. Cohen, K.C., and Phillips contended that the proceedings were political, and the appointment of the Commission an act of State, not cognizable by judicial authority. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD DAVEY. In this case the petitioner, the Maharajah, seeks to obtain leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against an act of the Governor-General of India in Council Removing him from the Government of the State of Panna. That is clearly a political act—an act of State—done by the Viceroy in Council in the interest of the State of Panna, and the inhabitants of Panna, and for the peace and good government of India generally. Their Lordships are precluded by a long series of authorities and by well-established principles from entertaining a petition for leave to appeal against an act of that character. Mr. Their Lordships are precluded by a long series of authorities and by well-established principles from entertaining a petition for leave to appeal against an act of that character. Mr. Haldane has contended that the appeal is against a conviction of the Maharajah; but it is sufficient to say that the Commission in question was one appointed by the Viceroy himself for the information of his own mind, in order that he should not act in his political and sovereign character otherwise than in accordance with the dictates of justice and equity, and was not in any sense a Court, or, if a Court, was not a Court from which an appeal lies to His Majesty in Council. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty to dismiss the petition. There will be no order as to costs.