he was a member representing british 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.