History Assignment

“The beginning of Adalat system”

Submitted by

Vidushi Rai

Roll No. 62

B.A. LL.B.(Hons.) 2nd Semester

Maharashtra National Law University, University

 Table of Contents

1. Development of Adalat System during the time of

Warren Hastings

2. Reasons for reformative judicial measures

3. Different courts in Adalat system

4. Administration of justice 1st stage

5. Administration of justice 2nd stage

6. Administration of justice 3rd stage

7. Administration of justice 4th stage

8. Conclusion

Bibliography
 Development of Adalat System during the time of Warren Hastings

The administration of justice at the time Warren Hasting took over as Governor of Bengal
was in a bad shape. It was almost verging on a total collapse. The dual system of government
proved very defective and unsatisfactory. The courts had become the instruments of power
rather than of justice, useless as means of protection but apt instruments for oppression. On
realizing the fact that the system of double government had failed the company authorized the
then Governor Warren Hastings to adopt such regulations and pursue such measures as shall
at once ensure every possible advantage to the Company and free the ryots from the
oppression of Zamindars and petty tyrants.

Warren Hastings hence proceeded to make major changes in the administration of justice.
This paper work views the various reforms made by Warren Hastings during his time in
India. This administration of justice maybe studied in four stages. To start with Warren
Hastings realized the very fact that an impartial and regular administration of justice was
extremely essential for creating conditions for a better collection of land revenue. Thus
changes were made in regard to civil and criminal justice while various other provisions were
also introduced. Moreover one of the major development which took place was that the three
presidencies—Bengal, Bombay, and Madras— were divided into a number of districts for the
betterment of administration. Lastly, the appointment of Impey helped in fulfilling the need
of reforming the judicial system under the control and supervision of a powerful authority. In
fulfilment of his duties, his work of compiling the Civil Procedure Code was quite
recommendable. It was for the first time that the law was put on solid and certain grounds so
that the people could know as to what the procedure of courts was.
Warren Hastings went on to introduce reformative judicial measures
because of the following reasons:-

1. Connection between Revenue and judicial administration:

Revenue administration was a crucial function for the Britishers, not to mention that it was
one of the major source of their finances, but to collect revenue it was essential that there
was property in the provinces and the prosperity could be preserved only if there existed an
order of peace so that people did not get distracted from their occupational works, specially
those engaged in agricultural occupation. Such a state of peace would have given them
impetus to improve so that in the end they will be in a position to meet the government dues.
This peace and order again depended upon security of life and property which could have
been ensured only if there was a proper judicial system in place, which at the time was
absent.

2. No centralized judicial set up:

With the dissolution of the Mughal empire, and weakening of the Nawabs power in Bengal
and surrounding areas, the only judicial set up which existed also broke down such that every
person who had a local authority or power (Zamindars etc) began to exercise judicial power
as well, in order to achieve self-aggrandizement. Now the Kazis were not selected on the
basis of merit or character but on the basis of degree of favour that they forwarded to
officials. And since they were not meritorious, they began to misuse their power as there was
no system of checks placed on them.

3. Corruption in the courts:

Moreover, even the courts which were so had become corrupt as the courts used to charge
commissions from the parties on the amount that used to be recovered by them by the help of
court and this practice was against the very principle of natural justice as such practice made
judges party to the cause they decided by making them a profiteer from the case. This
practice was common also because of the lack of motive or incentive for the judges to act
impartially. They did not even use to get a regular salary and thus adopted to such a bribe
culture. It was highlighted by Arthur Keith that ‘courts were the instrument of power more
than an instrument of justice’
4. Atrocities of Englishmen:

The incursion of the Englishmen made the judicial system even more worse. The company
servants used to seize the lands or properties of any Indian against whom they used to have
any kind of claim. Further, they even used to hold such an Indian as their prisoners, not
releasing them until the claims or debts were paid. In doing so, the company servants did not
even used to seek consent of the officers of the Nawab’s Government which at that time was
too weak and thus, were forced to overlook such disputes.

Different courts in Adalat System: (in order of the hierarchy)

1. Small Cause Courts

These courts were present in each of the village or pergunnah and used to deal with small or
petty cases. Decisions of these courts used to be binding up to the value of Rs 10. these courts
were headed by either the village headman or the head farmer of the respective pergunnah.

2. Mofussil or district courts:

• Mofussil Diwani Adalat- these courts used to be present in each district and had
jurisdiction over the revenue and civil cases including the disputes related to
marriages, inheritance, castes, debts, contracts, disputed accounts, personal properties,
partnership and demand on rent. It used to have pecuniary jurisdiction of up to Rs 500
such that decisions of this court up to this amount was final. Collector of the district
use to act as the judge of this court who use to work in assistance with the native law
officers such as the Kazis and Pundits. These law officers used to assist the judge as
the collector did not has the knowledge about the personal laws of the Hindus and the
Muslims which was to be applied to different disputes which were presented before
the court.

• Mofussil Nizamat Adalat- these courts were also known as Fauzdari Adalats. These
courts were also present in each district but unlike the mofussil Diwani Adalat, it used
to deal only with the criminal cases. Further, it was not empowered to try cases
involving death sentences or cases demanding forfeiture of property of the accused as
such cases were to be submitted to Sadar Diwani Adalat for final orders. These courts
were presided over by the Muslim law officers only. The Moulvi used to expound the
 law, while the Kazi and the Mufti used to give Fatwa and render the judgment
accordingly. But alongside these officers of law, collectors also used to have an
important role in these courts which was that of a supervisor. He used to see that all
the necessary witnesses were heard, that the cases were tried regularly and that the
judgments were impartial.

3. Sadar or Provincial courts:

• Sadar Diwani Adalat– this was the apex court for civil cases in the province. It used
to have both the appellate as well as original jurisdiction as it not only used to hear
appeals from Mofussil Diwani Adalat but also used to take up cases which involving
dispute of over Rs 500. It used to charge five percent of the amount of dispute on each
petition or appeal. It was presided over by the governor and his council, and was
located in the presidency town of Calcutta. Its first sitting took place on 17thMarch,
1773.

• Sadar Nizamat Adalat– this was the apex court for criminal cases in the province.
Similar to Sadar Diwani Adalat, it also used to have both original as well as appellate
jurisdiction. As mentioned above, it used to have specific jurisdiction to decide over
matter of death sentence and forfeiture of property. In cases of death sentence, the
death warrant was prepared by this Adalat and was to be signed by the Nawab as the
head of the Nizamat. This court was presided over by Daroga-I-Adalat who used to
act as the judge of this court. He was assisted by a Chief Kazi, a Chief Mufti and three
Moulvies. Similar to Mofussil Nizamat Adalat, there used to be a supervisory
authority in the form of Governor-in-Council who used to keep a check over the
functioning of this court. It was earlier located in Calcutta but was later shifted to
Murshidabad, where the Nawab resided, in order to reduce the effort which used to be
there to get his signature in cases of death sentences. Another development which was
seen later was the development of the office of Naib Nazim in which Mohd. Reza
Khan was appointed, who was to work and give assent on behalf of Nawab.
 Administration Of Justice: First Stage

The Judicial Plan of 1772 as been formulated by Warren Hasting consisted of 37 regulations
dealing with civil and criminal laws. It was the first Anglo-Indian Code, which worked out on
the basis of experience and common observations. An endeavour was made to adopt it to the
manners and understandings of the people and exigencies of the country, adhering as closely
as possible to their ancient usages and institutions. The idea was to retain, as far as possible,
the native magistracy and codes of law, recorded and oral, to which the people had become
accustomed. The plan aimed at correcting the defects without destroying the traditions of the
local systems. Thus the diwani area of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa was divided into several
districts, each with an English collector as its head. This ‘district’ was the main
administrative unit in the plan. The main features of Judicial Plan of 1772 may be explained
under the following headings:

Civil Justice: A Mofussil Diwani Adalat was established in each district to decide civil cases.
The collector was the judge of this court. The court took cognizance of all civil cases
including property, inheritance, succession, caste, marriage, contracts, accounts etc. In the
suits regarding inheritance, marriage, caste and other religious usages and institutions, the
Hindu law was applicable to the Hindus while the laws of Koran was applied to the
Mohammedans. The collector in matters of Hindus and Muslims was helped by pandits and
kazis respectively who expounded the law. Appeals from these courts were to be heard by the
Sadar Diwani Adalat at Calcutta where the subject matter of the case exceeded Rs. 500. This
court comprised Governor as its President and at least two members of the council aided by
Diwan Treasury and Chief Kanungos.

Criminal Justice: A Mofussil Faujdari (or Nizamat) Adalat was established in each district for
the trial of crimes and misdemeanours. This court was assisted by a Kazi or Mufti and two
Maulvies who expounded the law, while the Collector had a general supervision over the
court. The court had full power to decide and punish all criminal cases though they were not
empowered to award death sentence. In such cases, the court’s decision was submitted to
Sadar Nizamat Adalat for confirmation and finally to the Nawab for his sentence.
Sadar Nizamat Adalat, established at Calcutta, was presided by an Indian judge known as
Daroga-i-Adalat who was to be assisted by the chief Kazi, chief Mufti and three Maulvies to
hear the appeals from the Faujdari Adalat.

Revenue Administration: The whole revenue system was reorganized under the Hastings plan
of 1772. The revenue Boards at Murshidabad and Patna were abolished and a supreme
authority called the Board of Revenue was set up at Calcutta which consisted of the Governor
and all the members of the Council. The Treasury was also shifted to Calcutta. Further, the
district supervisors were appointed as Collectors of revenue and also native Naib Diwans as
heads of the native executive in districts.

Moreover, the Board of Revenue comprising Governor and his Councilors at Calcutta sat
twice a week for issuing necessary orders and instructions to the Collectors of Districts and
inspecting, auditing, and passing the revenue accounts.
The plan of 1772 was in many respects a boon to the people at that time. The change in
judicial system brought back the confidence of the people in the government and the justice.
However, a grave defect in the plan was that the Collector acted as the administrator; the
Judge and the Magistrate in the district i.e. there was over-centralisation of powers in a single
official.

Miscellaneous Provisions: A few provisions were made to promote pure and impartial justice.
All cases were to be heard in open court. All adalats were to maintain proper registers and
records. District adalats were to transmit abstracts of their records to Sadar Adalats. This
precaution was necessary so as to discourage judicial officers from misusing their power. To
make justice inexpensive, the old vexatious impositions on administration of justice were
abolished and moderate fees were prescribed for trial of civil cases which was bound to give
relief to people. To supplement the work of the courts, the method of arbitration was also
provided for.

Despite the merits of Judicial Plan of 1772, it had certain demerits which are stated as
follows:
One of the major defects of the Plan was that there was over-centralization of powers in a
single official, namely, the Collector. He was overburdened with heavy work as he was
singularly required to shoulder the responsibility as an administrator, revenue collector, civil
judge and a magistrate in his District.
The Judicial Plan had a limited application only in the territory of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.
It was based on an erroneous assumption of Hastings that Indian population consisted of only
the Hindus and Muslims. There were other communities and races for which there was no
provision made in the Judicial Plan. Though the functioning of Adalats was under the
supervision and control of the Sadar Adalat at Calcutta, but in absence of adequate means of
communications it was almost impossible for the government at Calcutta to keep a constant
watch on the working of the Collectors of the districts. In absence of an effective control, the
Collectors indulged in private trading and misused their position and power for personal
gains.
The judges of the courts being Englishmen, they did not have knowledge of personal laws of
Hindus and Muslims. Though native laws officers were appointed to assist the English
judges, but they could easily misguide the judges by deliberately misinterpreting the
provisions of the Quran and Shastras. The functions of revenue collection and civil
administration were combined in a single official, the Collector. Therefore there was no
separation between revenue collection and civil administration. Obviously, the Collector paid
more attention to revenue collection than the civil administration.

Administration Of Justice: Second Stage

The abolition of the institution of Collector in 1773 on the advice of the Court of Directors of
the Company in England up-set the judicial arrangement of 1772 and a new Plan became an
urgent need of the time. Warren Hastings prepared new Plan on November 23, 1773 which
was implemented in January 1774. various changes made in regard to revenue, civil justice,
criminal reforms are as follows:
Revenue: Collectors were re-called from the districts and in their place an Indian officer,
called Diwan or Amil, was appointed. He was to act as a judge of the Mofussil Diwani Adalat
and collected the land revenue also. The entire Mofussil area in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa was
divided into six divisions with the Headquarters as Calcutta, Burdwan, Murshidabad,
Dinajpore, Dacca and Patna. Each division had a Provincial Council consisting of a Chief and
four senior servants of the Company. A Committee of Revenue was instituted at Calcutta for
superintending that Division, consisting of two members of the Council and three senior
servants, assisted by a Diwan and others. The Councils and the Committee were to supervise
the collection of revenue in their Divisions. Indian Naib Diwans were appointed in the
districts under each Provincial Council to look after the same work. Complaints against the
Head Farmers, Naib Diwans, Zamindars and other principal officers of the government,
relating to their conduct in the revenue, were to be decided by the Provincial Councils.
Aggrieved parties might ultimately go to the Board of Revenue at Calcutta.
Civil Justice: The provisions relating to appeals in civil cases were also considerably
liberalised under the plan of 1774. Now all cases decided by the Mofussil Diwani Adalats
were appealable to the Provincial Council irrespective of the value of the subject matter of
the suit. There was also a provision for second appeal to the Sadar Diwani Adalat in cases
exceeding the value of Rs. 1000/-
Criminal Reforms: The Officers of the Faujdari Adalats were forbidden to hold farms or other
offices in the Mofussil and were obliged to reside in their districts on pain of forfeiting their
employments. Complaints against them were to be lodged with the Governor-General who
would refer them to the Sadar Nizamat Adalat for inquiry and determination.
Although the new system was an improvement over the earlier one, the change did not give
good results for long. The Council took the place of the Collector in creating the difficulties
and monopolising the trade within its jurisdiction. Warren Hastings detected this defect very
soon but he could not make any change till 1780 when entirely a new modified system

Administration of Justice: Third Stage

The defects of the system set up in 1774 were seen in the Patna Case which is concerned with
the conflict between the jurisdiction of Supreme Court and function of adalat in mofussil
areas.
As it was in practice those days, the Mofussil Adalat as well as the Provincial Council
employed services of Kazis and Maulabis to interpret the Muslim law. The judicial
commission arrived at a decision after taking into account the consultation of the Maulabis
and Kazis. Thus it became a practice to neglect judicial work.
In this case, the Maulabis and Kazis were given the power to take the evidence of the case
and arrive to a decision. No established law was followed while taking the evidence and the
Provincial Council passed a judgement based on the evidence collected by irregular
procedure.
The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Council did not delegate its judicial decisions
according to the procedures held by the Supreme Court. Thus an order was passed by the
Supreme Court to send the wrong-doers to jail.
The decisions of the Supreme Court were criticized to a large extent. Following this, the work
in Mofussil Adalat came to a halt because no officers in this adalat were ready to take up
judicial work as they will have to go to jail. The work of revenue collection also suffered
because most of the revenue officers left their jobs.
The defect when came to the knowledge of Warren Hastings, could not continue any longer
and he remedied it by giving a new judicial plan promulgated on 11 April 1780.
The basic feature of this plan was the separation of revenue matters from judicial matters.

Henceforth, there were established separate authorities

(a) To deal with the collection of land revenue and to decide the disputes arising there from
and
(b) For the purpose of deciding other disputes.

Under this system the provincial councils were left only with the function of collecting the
land revenue and deciding revenue disputes and other judicial functions were taken away
from their hands.

Diwani Adalat
A new court, called the Provincial Court of Diwani Adalat was established at each of the
headquarters of the six divisions. This Adalat was presided over by an English covenanted
servant of the Company who was called the Superintendent of the Diwani Adalat. He was to
be appointed by the Governor-General and Council. This Court was to hold its sittings thrice
a week and decide civil cases pertaining to property, inheritance and contracts. It was also
empowered to hear cases relating to inheritance and succession of Zamindari and Talukedari
which were hitherto within the purview of the Governor and Council. The decision of the
Provincial Court of Diwani Adalat in cases upto the value of Rs.1000/- was final and in cases
exceeding this value, an appeal lay to the Sadar Diwani Adalat at Calcutta which consisted of
the Governor General and Council.

The plan of 1780 was certainly a great improvement upon the plan of l774.
Its main merit lay in its effecting the separation of the judicial from the executive functions. It
was a welcome change. The plan, however, suffered from defects also.

The Superintendents of the Diwani Adalats were not selected from the senior servants of the
Company. Some of them were illiterate, ignorant of the Eastern languages and most
extravagant, dissipated young men.

There was a tendency of the new Adalats to come into conflict with the Provincial Councils.
The Governor-General-in-Council had no time to sit at the Sadar Court to hear appeals and
supervise the work of these Courts. Without the support and control of some powerful
authority, it was impossible for them even to subsist; there was possibility of their sinking
into contempt or becoming instruments of oppression.
There were only six Diwani Adalats. This number was very small in a vast area of Bengal,
Bihar and Orissa. This resulted into great expense on the part of the suitors, waste of their
time and energy and inconveniences they suffered from, on account of long journeys. Even
those persons, whose cases, not exceeding Rs. 100 in value, were referred to Zamindars or
public officers, had to come at least once to the Divisional Headquarters for such reference.
The Zamindars or public officers as honorary Judges. There was thus a danger of their
abusing the authority to their own advantage. Further the paucity of the Courts put a very
heavy strain on the Diwani Adalats.

The Provincial Council which was left only with revenue functions also had the power to
decide the disputes relating to revenue matters and to that extent it worked as a court in its
own cause which was against the principles of natural justice.
Appointment of Impey at Sadar Diwani Adalat:

There was an urgent need of reforming the judicial system under the control and supervision
of a powerful authority. From the beginning, the business of the Sadar Diwani Adalats was
not only to receive appeals from the inferior Courts in all cases exceeding a certain amount
but to receive and revise their proceedings, to attend to their conduct, to remedy their defects
and to form generally such regulations and checks as experience should prove to be necessary
to the purpose of their institution. The Governor-General and Council, who previously
constituted the Sadar Diwani Adalat, admitted their incapacity of exercising these powers and
expressly stipulated that Chief Justice Sir Elijah lmpey should act as the sole Judge of the
Sadar Diwani Adalat on a salary at their pleasure. They thought that this would lessen the
tension between the Council and the Court, would facilitate and give vigour to the course of
justice, lessen the burden of the Council and add, to its leisure for occupations more urgent
and better suited to the genius and principles of Government. The Governor-General and the
Councillors were non-lawyers. Impey, being an experienced and trained lawyer was expected
to discharge judicial functions in a far better way and curb out evils from the judicial
establishment of the Company.

Elijah Impey was, therefore, appointed the sole Judge of the Sadar Diwani Adalat in October,
1780. He continued in this office till November, 1782 when he was recalled to England. In
fulfillment of his new duties, Impey prepared thirteen articles of Regulations for the guidance
of the Civil Courts. They were afterwards incorporated, with additions and amendments, in a
revised Code, consisting of ninety-five articles, which was passed in July, 1781. This was the
first Civil Procedure Code of India. The aims were to explain such rules, orders, and
regulations as might be ambiguous, to revoke such as might be repugnant or obsolete to
frame a consistent Code, to formulate the procedure and jurisdiction of the civil courts, to
prescribe a general table of fees, to make the law of civil procedure cognizable to the people,
to provide for arbitration and appeals to the Sadar Diwani Adalat, to provide for the limitation

of suits, giving in most cases a term of twelve years, to protect the litigating people from the
extortions or frauds of the unscrupulous officers of the Courts, and so on.

Reforms by Impey:
Sir Impey remained in his office for about a year but during this time he made very important
reforms in the administration of judiciary of that time. He issued regulations for the
improvement of all the courts existing in the Mofussil area. By those regulations the
following new changes were made.

1. The Diwani Adalat at the divisions were directed to hear all the cases in the open court
after administering proper oath to the witnesses. The law officers should be used only for the
purpose of expounding the law on the facts which the court had decided, i.e. the law officers
had no power to decide the facts or hear the witnesses or the parties. The procedure which
was found to have been followed in Patna Case of reporting the matter to the court by the law
officers was stopped by this Regulation.

2. The number of the Diwani Adalats was increased from 6 to 18 so as to avoid the
inconvenience to the people coming from long distances and also to reduce the arrears of
work.

3. The most distinguished work which Impey did was the compilation of a Civil procedure
Code which was first of its kind ever introduced in this country. The Code was promulgated
by the Governor General and Council on 5 July 1781. Although the Code did not make very
far reaching Changes, it put the law on solid and certain grounds so that the people could
know as to what the procedure of courts was. It also bound down the courts to follow the
procedure specified in it. The Code consisted of 95 clauses.

4. The provision regarding the application of personal laws in certain categories of cases viz.,
inheritance, marriage, caste and other religious usages or institutions was incomplete so far as
the rule of decision in other cases was concerned. Besides, adding the word 'succession' to the
word 'inheritance', Impey filled up the gap by providing that in all cases for which no specific
directions were given, the Sadar Diwani Adalat and the Mofussil Diwani Adalats were to act
according to justice, equity and good conscience, This was a remarkable provision which
completed the rule of decision in all civil cases of Hindus and Mohammedans.

5. Another important feature of the Plan was putting the Sadar Diwani Adalat on a· sounder
basis. Impey brought the union of the powers of a Board of Superintendence with those of a
Court of Appeal. Laziness, laxity, impatience and want of method were the faults of which
young, inexperienced Judges, devoid of any legal know1edge and having only an imperfect
knowledge of languages of their respective huge districts, were guilty. Superintendence was,
therefore, as urgent as appeal. The Sadar Diwani Adalat was, therefore, to perform the
following functions: (a) To hear appeals from the lower Courts in cases exceeding Rs. 1,000;
(b) to decide any matter of civil nature referred to it by the Governor-General-in-Council; (c)
to exercise control and supervision over the lower Court, firstly, by receiving an original
complaint, cognizable by a lower Court which refuses to entertain it, and then referring it to
Mofussil Diwani Adalat for expeditious disposal, and secondly, by suspending a Judge of a
lower Court on ground of misconduct and reporting the matter to the Governor-General-in-
Council for final decision.

Recall of Impey
The appointment of Impey to the Sadar Diwani Adalat was actually a good step for the
reformation of judicial system and he himself also worked very vigorously and sincerely to
reform it. But his holding the twin offices of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the
Judge of the Sadar Diwani Adalat was not favoured by the authorities in England. They
thought it was a violation of The Regulating Act which had established a judicial system at
Calcutta independent of all control from the Company. To them, by accepting the judgeship
of the Sadar Diwani Adalat, Chief Justice, Impey had put himself under the subordination of
the Company from whom he got his appointment and also the salary as judge of the Sadar
Diwani Adalat. Although after few months Impey refused to draw his salary as judge of the
Sadar Diwani Adalat unless the Lord Chancellor gave him a clearance. His sincerity was
doubted in England and he was recalled on May 3, 1782 from his office of judgeship of the
Sadar Diwani Adalat as well as from the Chief Justiceship of the Supreme Court. After the
recall of Impey the Sadar Diwani Adalat again came into its previous from, i.e., the court was
again constituted of Governor General Council.
Though Impey was accused of compromising his judicial independence as a Crown's Judge,
and was, therefore, called back, he gave no opportunity to anyone to say that he, as the sole
Judge of the Sadar Diwani Adalat, acted in a way which compromised his judicial
independence as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Whatever the criticism, his Code
was an extraordinary contribution giving new directions to Judges of the Diwani Adalats and
litigants. Its compilation was the first attempt of its kind in India, and it made the law of civil
procedure certain to some extent. Under the judgeship of Impey the whole judicial system
indefinitely became much better. Thus the act of appointing Impey was later regarded as one
of the wisest measures which Warren Hastings carried through.
 Administration of Justice: Fourth Stage

Under the Plan of 1772, a Sadar Nizamat Adalat was established at Calcutta. In 1775, it was
shifted to Murshidabad probably to avoid any interference from, and conflict as to
jurisdiction with, the Supreme Court. There it was put under the authority of the Naib-Nazim
Reza Khan. In 1776, a plan for criminal justice from Reza Khan was adopted, under which
twenty-three Fauzdari Adalats in all were established in the districts. But as the system had
once become loose and the Collector or the Governor-General and Council could not get
enough time to have an effective control over these courts, they failed to provide justice to
the people. Justice was neither given in time nor any principles of justice was taken into
consideration. The accused had to remain in detention for years before his trial was finalised.
The conditions of prisons were inhuman. There were number of defects in the system which
required total overhauling of criminal administration of justice. The Mohammedan law of
crimes was also very defective. Warren Hastings was quite conscious of all this and in the
year 1781 he drew a scheme for some reforms in the criminal judicial administration.

Reforms in the Criminal Judicature

The following reforms were made by Warren Hastings in the Criminal Judicature:
In order to devise a machinery to arrest criminals and to bring them to trial, the Judges of the
Mofussil Diwani Adalats were appointed as Magistrates also. They were, however, not given,
for the time being any jurisdiction to try them. They were to apprehend those persons who
were suspected of having committed crimes and send them to the nearest Faujdari Adalats for
trial with written accusations.

To have an effective supervision over the proceedings of the criminal courts including the
Sadar Nizamat Adalat, Warren Hastings created a separate department at Calcutta to receive
monthly reports and returns of proceedings, lists of persons apprehended and sent for trials by
Magistrates, details of charges leveled against them, and the lists of persons released,
convicted, and put in confinement by the criminal courts.
A covenanted servant of the Company was appointed to act under the Governor-General as
head of this Department, with the title of the Remembrancer of the Criminal Courts. He was
incharge of all the reports dispatched by various Magistrates and courts. He was to analyze
these reports, prepare extracts and arrange them in a proper way. This is how a check was to
be maintained on all persons entrusted with the administration of criminal justice.

But the control exercised by this officer was very weak and imperfect. The system did not
prove to be effective. The Remembrancer depended for information on the reports of various
courts and it was not difficult for the latter to manipulate them so as to present a favourable
picture of the things and to conceal the real state of affairs from the Government.

In 1782, the number of Faujdari Adalats was reduced from twenty-three to eighteen. While in
1785, for more speedy and effectual administration of criminal justice, the Magistrates were
empowered to try petty offences; but in all cases affecting either the life or limb of the
accused persons or subjecting them to imprisonment of more than four days or to corporal
punishment exceeding fifteen stripes, the Magistrates could not try the accused themselves
but to send them to the Faujdari Adalats. This particular provision was made soon after the
departure of Warren Hastings to England.
 Conclusion

The work of Warren Hastings has left a deep impact on the History of India. Though on one
hand his contributions to the administration of justice are appreciable to some extent, but on
the other hand the reforms made by him had its own flaws.

Appreciating his contributions, the various reforms implemented by him justify that he was
not only a capable administrator but also a great inventive genius. He adopted the method of
“trial and error” in uprooting the evils of the existing judicial and executive systems and
never hesitated even in taking bold steps to remove such evils. As the first Governor-General
he proved himself as one of the most faithful servants of the English East India Company,
who played a vital role in further strengthening the foundation, which was earlier laid down
by Clive, for the future expansion of the British Empire in India.

Now taking into account his flaws, one may notice that, certain areas like the constitution of
criminal courts, the defects and severity of Muslim criminal law, the mode of trial and
proceedings in the criminal courts, which mainly required vital reforms and special attention
were left untouched by him. While on the other hand, he only touched the fringe of the whole
problem of improving the criminal justice.

But considering his limitations which arose due to his conflict with hostile Members of the
Council, wavering support of the Company’s Directors in England, antagonistic interests of
political parties in England prejudicing his reputation, his failure to implement his ideas and
plans in this regard, is justifiable.
 Bibliography

• Dr. N.V. Paranjape, Indian Legal & Constitutional

History, 5th Edn., Central Law Agency
• M.P Singh, Outlines of Indian Legal & Constitutional
History, 7th Edn., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt.
Ltd.
• Prof. J.K. Mittal, Indian Legal & Constitutional History,
1st Edn., Allahabad Law Agency.
• Prof. M.P.Jain, Outlines of Indian Legal
&Constitutional History, 6th Edn., Wadhwa and
Company Nagpur.
• https://www.legalbites.in/adalat-system-reforms-warren-
hastings/
• http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/252/Develop
ment-of-Adalat-System-during-the-time-of-Warren-
Hastings.html