Is Skuy’s central aim the contestation of the assumption that the British legal system was itself modernised or superior to the Indian?
What were the reason sgiven by Macaulay for codification? What role did the pundits and maulvis play? Was it desirable to curb their role (from what/whose perspective are you going to answer this?)?
Though the Courts were created in 1726, for a long time the british did not interfere in our legal system. Why? What were the problems facing the penal systems in the presidencies?
What was Macaulay’s background – what kind of impact did it have on his perception of codification of criminal law? Was the codification a consequence of the backwardness of the law in India or are there other factors that you are equally/more relevant?
What do the Bloody Code and Peels Act tell us about the reform going on in England then? Is Skuy’s argument – that the Acts did not meet the standard clarification and simplification as there was inconsistency and logical incoherence which was why Bentham & Co. argued for complete codification and this affected what was happening in India – valid?
Was there was a general push for precision, streamlining and proportionality (can you demonstrate through an example?) Why is this so and how does it relate back to what iss happening in India?
What was the position of the development of English law when the IPC was passed? Had it been successfully updated? Can we say that, therefore, the Code’s substantive and procedural provisions were motivated by shortcomings in England, and designed to fit England’s needs rather than India’s? In other words: was the Indian Penal Code actually the transplanting of English law in India, not because Indian law was primitive, but because English law needed reform? How does Skuy deal with this?
What are the reasons that compel Skuy to take such a stance? Were the structure and organisation of the IPC was very similar to the draft codes prepared by the Royal Commission? Can you think of the main distinction was that the English codes and the IPC?
Can we say that Macaulay’s claims to uniqueness and originality were flawed in that although there were obviously some differences with respect to issues such as caste and religion, these were slight?