Gandhi Jayanti Lecture of Dr. Siby K. Joseph

 

The Lawyer Gandhi: The Lessons Humanity Can Learn

Dr. Siby K. Joseph

I consider it an honour and privilege to deliver a lecture on the eve of Gandhi Jayanti at the Department of Law, Yeshwant Mahavidyalaya, Wardha. The theme of this lecture is "The Lawyer Gandhi: The Lessons Humanity Can Learn." In this lecture, I will start by analyzing the question of why Gandhi opted for a legal education. You may perhaps be aware that Gandhi initially had an inclination to pursue a medical education and become a physician. However, his devout Vaishnavite Hindu family background stood in the way, because medical training required the dissection of dead bodies, which was in direct conflict with their strict religious principles. Furthermore, Gandhi’s father, Karamchand Gandhi, had served as the Diwan (Chief Minister) of Porbandar, and the family expected Mohandas to continue this administrative legacy. It was Mavji Dave, a trusted family friend and advisor, who strongly advised him to pursue legal studies in England to properly equip young Mohandas for a future Diwanship.

Mahatma Gandhi’s educational background, especially his law studies in London, has recently become a subject of intense discussion. Furthermore, a new claim has emerged indicating that he earned a law degree from University College London (UCL)—a fact that is altogether absent from Gandhi’s own writings about his studies in London, as well as the works of scholars who researched this period. Therefore, we will look into this aspect during this lecture because, as students of law, it is essential to check the facts before making any judgement or arriving at a definitive conclusion.

Gandhi's formal education in India was indeed modest. He completed his primary schooling in Porbandar, attended Alfred High School in Rajkot, and briefly enrolled at Samaldas College in Bhavnagar before dropping out. Gandhi travelled to England in 1888 to pursue a career in law. According to admission records held in the archives of the Inner Temple, Gandhi was admitted as a student on November 6, 1888, paying an enrolment fee of £140-1s-5d. His subsequent call to the Bar on June 10, 1891, was proposed by A. G. Marten, a Master of the Bench.

In a recorded presentation, the Honourable Judge Deborah Taylor of the Inner Temple presented Gandhi’s original admission and call papers from the Inn's document archives, noting:

"I am delighted to talk about the history of Mahatma Gandhi, one of our illustrious former members, and his time at the Inn... The admission papers we have show that his address was in Baron's Court in West Kensington. He studied law for three years and was called to the Bar in the Trinity term of 1891. Most of his study would have been external—at home—unlike today, when students attend courses and additional training sessions within the Inn. And, of course, we have his core papers to the Inn, which were supported, as they would be today, by a Master of the Bench."

The certificate issued to Gandhi during the Trinity term of 1891 confirms that he successfully "kept twelve terms." This requirement aligns with Gandhi’s own recollections in his autobiography, which are excerpted in the Inner Temple Library document, Architects of Indian Independence:

"There were two conditions which had to be fulfilled before a student was formally called to the Bar: ‘keeping terms’, twelve terms equivalent to about three years; and passing examinations. ‘Keeping terms’ meant eating one’s terms, i.e., attending at least six dinners out of about twenty-four dinners in a term. Eating did not mean actually partaking of the dinner; it meant reporting oneself at the fixed hours and remaining present throughout the dinner. Usually, of course, everyone ate and drank the good commons and choice wines provided. A dinner cost from two and six to three and six, that is, from two to three rupees... I often ate nothing at these dinners, for the things that I might eat were only bread, boiled potato, and cabbage. In the beginning, I did not eat these, as I did not like them; and later, when I began to relish them, I also gained the courage to ask for other dishes."

As defined on its official website, the Inner Temple holds a distinct legal status: "The Inner Temple is an unincorporated membership association which has existed since the 14th Century. The Inns of Court hold the exclusive right to Call students to practise law at the Bar of England and Wales."

Enrolment at the Bombay High Court

Soon after being called to the Bar, Gandhi returned to India and sought admission as an Advocate of the Bombay High Court. In his formal application letter to the Prothonotary and Registrar, as well as the supporting certificate from Mr. W. D. Edwards, the Inner Temple is the only institution mentioned.

In his letter dated November 16, 1891, to the Prothonotary and Registrar of the Bombay High Court, M.K. Gandhi applied to be admitted as an Advocate. He stated that he was called to the Bar in England on June 10, 1891, after keeping twelve terms at the Inner Temple, and declared his intention to practice in the Bombay Presidency. Gandhi noted that while he lacked a certificate from an English judge, he provided a character certificate from W. D. Edwards, a practicing Barrister in the Supreme Court of Judicature in England and author of a prescribed legal text.

The Absence of University College London in Official Records

It is pertinent to note that in both his application to the Bombay High Court and the supporting certificate from W. D. Edwards, there is absolutely no mention of University College London (UCL). If Gandhi had obtained a relevant university degree that qualified him to practice as a lawyer, he would have undoubtedly mentioned it in his formal application. Thus, it is evident that his sole relevant qualification was his certificate from the Inner Temple.

The argument that the Inner Temple does not confer a formal academic degree is not a new discovery. In response to an article by historian Vinay Lal referencing Gandhi’s "degree," Lal received a communication in October 2003 from a barrister who was a graduate of UCL and a member of the Inner Temple. The barrister pointed out that the Inns of Court do not confer degrees, asserting instead that Gandhi had earned his degree from UCL. In response, Vinay Lal wrote:

"Though with respect to one of these points, namely the fact that the four Inns of Court — Gray’s Inn, Inner Temple, Middle Temple, and Lincoln’s Inn — do not confer degrees, this gentleman is entirely correct, so long as strict fidelity to empirical facts is the only criterion of what counts as “right” and “wrong”, it does not appear to me to stretch the point to suggest that the brief description offered by myself of Gandhi’s experience with the institutions peddling a law degree, so to speak, can stand as it is."

Furthermore, there is no mention of University College London in Gandhi’s autobiography or in any major biography dealing with his days in London. Charles R. DiSalvo, in his book M. K. Gandhi: Attorney at Law — The Man before the Mahatma, sheds light on the nature of English legal education at the time. DiSalvo notes that 19th-century legal training in London, where students enrolled in one of the four Inns of Court rather than a university, was starkly different from modern academic requirements. As DiSalvo further notes, Gandhi, like all aspiring barristers, selected one of these inns—specifically the Inner Temple, which was the most expensive.

The certificate awarded to Gandhi confirms his enrolment at the Inner Temple on November 6, 1888, and his call to the Bar on June 10, 1891, though it does not specify whether it was a diploma or a degree. However, a "Declaration to be made by a student before call to the Bar," signed by Gandhi on May 28, 1891, along with a 1789 Bench Table Order, indicates that being "called to the Bar" was historically referred to as the conferring of a "degree of Bar," confirming his qualifications as a barrister.

Investigating the University College London (UCL) Alumnus Claim

We must look closely at the assertion made by University College London that Mahatma Gandhi is one of its alumni. While his name remains on the official UCL website list of prominent alumni, the origin of this narrative traces back to an addition made by editor S. B. Kher in newer editions of the book The Law and Lawyers by M. K. Gandhi. Kher added a note under the section "Gandhiji as a Law Student," drawing from an article by Soli Sorabjee titled "Terrorists, National Security and Gandhi" (published on October 28, 2001, in the Out of Court series). The note states:

"It appears, however, that from 1888 to 1889, Gandhiji had enrolled himself as a student in the University College, London, for recently the University College, London has proudly claimed Gandhiji as one of its distinguished alumni. The alumni department of the college dug back into its archives and found an old card index box containing a small yellowing index card in which is handwritten Gandhiji's name and dates of attendances. It is now established that Gandhiji from 1888 to 1889 was enrolled as a student in the University College, London for courses in Indian law and jurisprudence."

However, this institutional claim was strongly challenged by Simon Wroe in an article published in the Camden New Journal on September 10, 2009. Wroe’s piece highlights an archival investigation led by UCL Law Professor Andrew Lewis. The investigation confirmed a single alumnus record for "Mahatma Karamchand Gandhi" (later amended to his correct name, Mohandas) registered for the 1888–1889 academic session. Crucially, Professor Lewis discovered that Gandhi’s name does not appear anywhere in the surviving class registers for law or any other subject. This indicates that while Gandhi may have sat in on lectures without signing the register, it is equally possible that he never set foot on the university campus.

According to a university spokesperson cited in the article, only three fragmented references to Gandhi exist within UCL’s historical records:

• The Student Index Card: A main record card mapping his enrolment to the 1888–1889 academic year, which was updated decades later to note his assassination in 1947.
• The Professors’ Fees Book (1888–1889): A ledger showing he was listed for two terms under Professor Henry Morley, who taught English literature rather than law.
• The University Calendar (1889–1890): A retrospective list compiling the previous year's students, which features the misspelled entry "Gaudhi." Because students of arts, laws, and sciences were aggregated together rather than separated by department, this entry provides no proof of legal studies.

In conclusion, empirical findings demonstrate that it is historically inaccurate to claim Mahatma Gandhi obtained a law degree from University College London. Because archival records lack evidence of his attendance in law classes—suggesting instead that he merely enrolled in basic English courses or independent lectures—the narrative that he utilized a traditional university framework to secure his legal credentials remains entirely unsupported by fact.

The Sedition Trial of 1922 and Disbarment

The professional status of Gandhi as a lawyer, which began in 1891, finally came to an end in 1922. It is true that Gandhi openly embraced his professional status during his early career. In his initial days of legal practice in India and later in South Africa, he displayed office plaques clearly identifying himself as "M.K. Gandhi, Attorney."

However, a sharp shift in his professional identity occurred during the historic Sedition Trial of 1922 in Ahmedabad, where he was charged with inciting disaffection against the British government. It is interesting to note that Gandhi, the Inner Temple lawyer, chose to identify himself simply as a "farmer and weaver." Following his conviction and subsequent six-year prison sentence, the Benchers of the Inner Temple formally disbarred him on November 10, 1922.

The Road to Posthumous Reinstatement

Gandhi never sought readmission to the Inn during his lifetime. Decades later, in 1969, Lord Mountbatten campaigned for Gandhi's posthumous readmission to mark his birth centenary, but the Inner Temple Bench initially declined the request. Instead, they accepted a secondary suggestion from Mountbatten to display a commemorative plaque offered by the Calcutta Arts Society, which was unveiled in May 1971. The historical circle finally closed on November 3, 1988, when the Inner Temple officially and posthumously readmitted Mahatma Gandhi to the Inn.

When the young Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi started his legal practice in India, he struggled to establish himself professionally. Consequently, he arrived in South Africa in May 1893 to provide legal counsel for the merchant Dada Abdulla. At the time, he was like any other lawyer—intent on using his legal training to earn a decent living. However, destiny had something else in store for him, and he was soon confronted by the harsh realities of institutionalized racial discrimination. During a visit to the Durban Court, the presiding magistrate ordered Gandhi to remove his turban. Considering this an assault on his cultural dignity, Gandhi refused and walked out of the courtroom.

But the defining moment that truly transformed the young lawyer occurred on the night of June 7, 1893, during a train journey from Durban to Pretoria. Despite holding a valid first-class ticket, Gandhi was confronted by a white passenger who objected to his presence in the compartment. Ordered to move to the third-class carriage, the young attorney protested against the injustice, resulting in him being forcibly ejected from the train at the Pietermaritzburg Railway Station.

Sitting in the bitter cold at the railway station that night proved to be a deeply creative and transformative experience for Gandhi—one that changed the ordinary lawyer into a lifelong fighter for human rights. Though he was a victim of racial discrimination, instead of returning to his homeland, he decided to stay back and fight for the cause of people of Indian origin in South Africa.

Despite the fact that he fought against racial discrimination, he has sometimes been described as a racist. This point was raised in an online meeting organized by a group in the US, which just concluded on the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti celebrations, and in which I was one of the speakers. I requested them to read my study, Gandhi: A Racist or Liberator.

Gandhi’s legal education helped him to understand the implications of ordinances and acts which adversely affected the interests of people of Indian origin. He spent more than two decades in South Africa and continued his legal practice there. However, Gandhi was of a different mettle and fully understood the limitations of the legal system in delivering justice to litigants. Therefore, he advocated an alternative methodology that largely comes under the broad umbrella of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which is now a standard subject of study for law students.

The Universal Relevance of Gandhi’s Critique of Law

The moot question is whether the path suggested by Mahatma Gandhi is applicable only to students studying law or to the entire human race. While the observations he made about law, lawyers, and the judicial system are uniquely beneficial for students undergoing legal studies, they are deeply valuable for the whole of humanity.

His seminal 1909 work, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), stands as a strong indictment of modern Western civilisation. In it, Gandhi sharply criticises foundational pillars of modern society, including the British parliament, railways, doctors, and lawyers. He argues that courts do not exist to serve the public; instead, they function as instruments for the powerful to maintain control over the masses:

"It is wrong to consider that courts are established for the benefit of the people. Those who want to perpetuate their power do so through the courts."

Furthermore, Gandhi believed that relying on an external legal system weakens individuals, making them dependent and fearful compared to when they settled disputes personally or communally:

"If people were to settle their own quarrels, a third party would not be able to exercise any authority over them. Truly, men were less unmanly when they settled their disputes either by fighting or by asking their relatives to decide for them. They became more unmanly and cowardly when they resorted to the courts of law."

Gandhi fundamentally questioned the ultimate fairness of a distant, paid third party, stating that true justice is obscured by commercialised litigation:

"Surely, the decision of a third party is not always right. The parties alone know who is right. We, in our simplicity and ignorance, imagine that a stranger, by taking our money, gives us justice."

A central pillar of his critique is that the colonial administration could not function without local legal professionals acting as intermediaries to ensure the smooth functioning of foreign rule. He observed:

"The chief thing, however, to be remembered is that without lawyers courts could not have been established or conducted and without the latter the English could not rule... The English could not do without Indian judges and Indian pleaders."

Though Gandhi wrote this while he was in South Africa, he literally implemented it on the ground during the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–1922) by calling upon lawyers to boycott the courts. Prominent lawyers like Motilal Nehru, C.R. Das, and Vallabhbhai Patel took the plunge and gave up their lucrative practices during the movement. Thus, Gandhi was instrumental in transforming the legal profession from an instrument of imperial rule into an engine for national liberation during India’s struggle for freedom from the British yoke.

Gandhi used harsh language to condemn the profession in Hind Swaraj, claiming that non-cooperation by Indian lawyers would collapse colonial governance instantly:

"If pleaders were to abandon their profession, and consider it just as degrading as prostitution, English rule would break up in a day. They have been instrumental in having the charge laid against us that we love quarrels and courts as fish love water."

It was an expression of this deep conviction that led him to refuse to identify himself as a lawyer during his legendary 1922 trial for sedition following the Non-Cooperation Movement, which I referred to in the first part of the lecture. Gandhi's approach was so revolutionary that he even went to the extent of saying:

“That a lawyer's work has the same value as the barber's, inasmuch as all have the same right of earning their livelihood from their work.”

This was a true call for an egalitarian society based on the ideal of Sarvodaya (welfare of all).

In his Autobiography, Gandhi wrote:

"I had learnt the true practice of law. I had learnt to find out the better side of human nature and to enter men's hearts. I realised that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder. The lesson was so indelibly burnt into me that a large part of my time during the twenty years of my practice as a lawyer was occupied in bringing about private compromises of hundreds of cases. I lost nothing thereby — not even money, certainly not my soul."

This is nothing but Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in modern legal language. His criticism is foundational, depicting the system's inherent deficiencies. He also rejected the notion that one cannot practice law without compromising the truth. He wrote in his Autobiography:

“It was not impossible to practise law without compromising truth. Even truthfulness in the practice of the profession cannot cure it of the fundamental defect that vitiates it."

What Gandhi wrote in Young India on December 22, 1927, should become a source of soul-searching reflection for law students. In this writing, Gandhi emphasized maintaining truth and honesty at the bar, urging lawyers to prioritize national service and the public good over personal financial gain or unconscionable fees. He warned against compromising truth for clients and disagreed with the notion that a lawyer's duty includes defending individuals known to be guilty. Instead, he asserted that the goal must always be to assist the court in arriving at the truth, rather than proving the guilty innocent.

According to Gandhi, a true lawyer places truth and service first, while financial emoluments become secondary. Because facts constitute three-fourths of the law, adhering to truth naturally brings the law to one's aid. He firmly maintained that an unjust law is a species of violence, fighting against it throughout his lifelong struggles in both South Africa and India. Gandhi's life remains a timeless source of inspiration and an ideal for law students, as well as for all of humanity walking on the path of truth.

About the Author

Dr. Siby K. Joseph is a Gandhian Scholar and Director of Sri Jamnalal Bajaj Memorial Library and Research Centre for Gandhian Studies, Sevagram Ashram Pratishthan, Sevagram, Wardha - 442102, Maharashtra, India.
Email: directorjbmlrc@gmail.com