HCL Notes - By Prof.

Kiruthika

UNIT -I and II

1. The Legislative Authority of the East India under the

Charter of Queen Elizabeth 1600

In the late 15th century, European nations began arriving in India as trading
merchants. In 1498, Vasco da Gama sailed around the Cape of Good Hope and
landed at Calicut on the Malabar Coast. In the 16th century, Protestant nations in
Western Europe, inspired by the Reformation, began challenging Portugal's control
of trade with India. The Dutch were the first to enter the trade, followed by English
merchants. The Danes came later, though in small numbers. While the French had
made early voyages, they only established a solid trade presence in India in the
mid-17th century under Colbert.

At this time, the Mughal Empire was at its peak, and the commercial focus of the
Europeans fit well with India's conditions. However, in the 18th century, as the
Mughal power weakened, local nobles and chiefs formed separate kingdoms. The
English and French East India Companies began getting involved in these local
conflicts. Eventually, the English East India Company became the dominant power,
expanding its influence and ultimately establishing British rule in India.

History of the Charter 1600:

The English arrived in India in 1601 as a group of trading merchants. On

December 31, 1600, Queen Elizabeth I granted a Charter to the company, officially
establishing the London East India Company. This Charter allowed the Company
to trade with America, Asia including India and Africa for 15 years, with the
condition that the Queen could terminate the agreement with two years' notice if
the trade proved unprofitable. As a result, the Company became a legal entity with
exclusive rights to trade in the East Indies. The Charter also granted the Company
legislative powers to create laws, ordinances, and regulations for governing itself
and its employees, and to punish offenses through fines or imprisonment, in
accordance with the laws and customs of England.

1
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

Charter 1600 :

The charter established the company as a joint-stock entity for trade in Asia and
Africa under the name "The Governor and Company of Merchants Trading
into the East Indies." It conferred the following rights:

- Exclusive trading rights with the East Indies

- Authority to create laws and regulations for the company and its employees
- The power to impose fines or imprisonment as punishment for offenses against
the company or its staff.
- It was established in 1600 under the Crown's Charter, granting it exclusive
trading rights in Asia (including India), Africa, and America.
- The company's members formed a General Court, which annually elected a Court
of Directors to manage its business.
- The Court of Directors consisted of a Governor and 24 Directors responsible for
overseeing the company's operations. The General Court had the power to remove
Directors before their term ended.

Objectives of the Company

- Initially, the company's goal was purely commercial—focusing on trade in
Asia, Africa, and America. It was given only the powers needed to regulate
business and maintain discipline among its employees.
- Upon entering India, the company exploited the disunity of Indian rulers and
gradually acquired territory.
- The Portuguese presence in India further motivated the company to gain
territorial control, which also benefited its trade by securing markets.While
its original purpose was trade, the company’s focus shifted to territorial and
political power.

Expansion of Powers
- The Charter of 1600 granted the company powers to manage its business and
employees. However, as its role became political, it required additional
powers, which the British Crown provided.
- Early justice systems in the company’s settlements were flawed, with no
separation of executive and judicial functions.

2
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

- Judges lacked legal expertise, and the company prioritized business over
judicial independence, fair justice, or the rule of law.

The Charter 1609: On 31st May 1609 James I granted a fresh charter to the
company which continued its privileges in perpetuity, subject to the proviso that
they could be withdrawn after three years notice. The company was also authorised
to continue to enjoyment of all it's privileges granted under 1600.

In order to enable the company to punish it's servants for grosser offences on long
voyages, the company secured Royal commission in 1601. Later on 14th
December,1615, the King authorised the company issue such commission to it's
captains subject to one condition that in case of capital offences eg. Wilful murder
and mutiny, a jury of twelve servants of the company will give the verdict.

The English established their first settlement in India during Emperor Jahangir's
reign, at Surat in 1612, a major trade center on the Western coast. To strengthen
their position, the English East India Company sought to engage with the Mughal
Emperor. In 1618, Sir Thomas Roe, ambassador of James I, succeeded in gaining
the Emperor's favor. The Mughal Emperor granted a Firman (order), allowing the
English Company several privileges:

● Disputes among the Company’s servants would be settled by their own

tribunals.
● The company was given this power in order to maintain discipline on board
during voyages with additional power given as martial law through charter
of 1623.
● The English would practice their own religion and laws within the Company.
● Local authorities would handle disputes between Englishmen and Hindus or
● The Mughal Governor or Kazi would protect the English from oppression or
harm.

The Charter 1661:

● In 1661 charter was granted by the Charles II, which granted conferred
board of power's on the east India company.

3
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

● It authorised the governor and council of each factory to hear the cases of all
persons whether Indians and Englishmen or Europeans while under charter
1600 only the cases of the company servant could be heard.
● The Charter of 1661 authorised the governor and council to hear and decide
all types of cases including the cases of capital offences and could award
death sentences. While under charter 1600 the capital offences could not be
awarded.
● The above said powers can only be exercised by the governor and councils
appointed by the company where there is no governor.
● During this Charter enactment also judiciary was not separated from the
executive.

2. Administrative Justice System And Judicial System - Before

1726.

i. Judicial Administration and development in Madras before 1726

History:
● On July 22, 1639, Francis Day, an Englishman, acquired land from the
Hindu Raja of Chandragiri for the East India Company. This land was called
Madraspatnam.
● Francis Day built Fort St. George in 1640 on the acquired land. The fort
served as both the Company's factory and the residence for English
employees.
● The area surrounding the fort became known as "White Town," where the
English lived, while the nearby village, inhabited by native Indians, was
called "Black Town.”
● The whole settlement consisting of white town and black Town is known as
Madras.
● The Raja granted the Company the authority to mint money and govern the
entire Madrasapattinam area.

4
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

ii. The Madras administration justice from 1639-1726 has three stages :

First stage: (1639-1665)

1. White Town: ( Court of agent)
Before 1665, Madras was subordinate to Surat and was not a presidency town. The
administrative head, known as the 'Agent', governed the settlement with the help of
a council. This body was responsible for administering civil and criminal justice to
White Town inhabitants. Serious criminal cases were referred to the company's
authorities in England for advice, leading to delays.
Defects:
● The judicial powers of the agent and council were vague, and referring
serious criminal cases to England caused delays.
● The agent and council were merchants, not legal experts, and lacked
knowledge of English laws, often deciding cases based on common sense.
● There was no separation between executive and judicial powers, as the agent
and council held both roles.

2. Black Town: ( court of chaultary)

In Black Town, the old judicial system was retained, with an Adigar (village
headman) maintaining law and order. The Choultry court, with the Adigar as judge,
handled petty civil and criminal cases based on traditional usages. Appeals from
this court were heard by the Agent-in-council. An Indian native, Kannappa, was
initially appointed as Adigar but was dismissed due to misuse of power, and
English servants replaced him as judges.
Defects:
● There was no fixed procedure for serious criminal cases, and processes
varied.
● The Choultry court judge was a layman, not a lawyer.
● The Choultry court could only hear minor cases and lacked authority to
handle serious crimes like murder.
● Like in White Town, there was no separation between executive and
judiciary, with the agent and council hearing appeals from the Choultry
court.

5
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

Second stage (1665-1686)

● In 1665, Mrs. Ascentia Dawes was charged with murdering her slave girl.
The Agent-in-council referred the case to the company's authorities in
England for advice.
● The company upgraded Madras' status from an agency to a presidency, and
the title of Agent was changed to Governor. This change was made because
the powers granted by the Charter of 1661 could only be exercised by the
Governor and council, not by the agent-in-council.
● Under the Charter of 1661, the Governor and council had the authority to
hear all types of civil and criminal cases, including capital offences like
murder.
● After the promotion to Governor, the case of Mrs. Dawes was tried by the
Governor with a jury, as per the company's instructions. Mrs. Dawes was
unexpectedly acquitted with a not guilty verdict.
● In 1678, judicial administration was reorganized, improving the judiciary in
both White Town and Black Town.

1. White Town: The Governor and council's court was declared the High
Court of Judicature, empowered to hear all civil and criminal cases for
White Town inhabitants with a jury. The High Court also handled serious
criminal cases of Indian inhabitants from Black Town and appeals from the
Choultry court with a jury.The court met twice a week and decided cases
based on English laws.

2. Black Town: The Choultry court was reorganized, and its judges were
increased to three, all Englishmen. At least two judges sat in the court for
two days each week. The Choultry court could hear petty criminal cases and
civil cases up to 50 pagodas (a pagoda being a gold coin worth three rupees).
Cases exceeding this value, with consent from both parties, were heard in
the High Court of Judicature.

6
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

Merits:
1. Regular court meetings were established, with both the High Court of
Judicature and Choultry court meeting twice a week, reducing delays in case
disposal.
2. The jurisdictions of the High Court of Judicature and Choultry court were
clearly defined.
Demerits:
1. Judges of the High Court of Judicature and Choultry court were laymen, not
legal experts, and lacked basic knowledge of English law, often deciding cases
based on common sense.
2. Serious criminal cases were still referred to the company's authorities in England
for advice, causing significant delays. For example, in 1678, an Englishman
charged with murder was imprisoned for 31 months without trial.
3. Despite having the authority to hear all civil and criminal cases, including
capital offences, the Governor and council often avoided deciding serious criminal
cases due to their lack of legal knowledge.
4. The separation of executive and judiciary was not maintained, as the Governor
and council held both powers.
5. The Choultry court had limited powers, dealing only with minor matters and
lacking authority over significant judicial matters.

Third Stage: 1683-1726

Courts of Admiralty:
1. Two important courts were established during this period: the Court of
Admiralty under the Charters of 1683 and 1686 (by the British Crown), and the
Mayor's court under the 1687 Charter (by the East India Company).
2. The Admiralty court was created due to infringements on the East India
Company's exclusive trading rights, as well as increasing piracy on the high seas. It
was needed to handle maritime and mercantile cases.
3. The need to establish admiralty court has been under the charter 1600 itself but
the East India company was conferred power to carry on trading activities in Asia,
Amarica and Africa. If any other British traders are trading in India they are
supposed to get a license from East India company.
4. The crime of piracy was increased to deal with it they needed court having
jurisdiction to handle cases of piracy, maritime offenses, and mercantile disputes.

7
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

5. The Charter of 1683 the court of admiralty was to consist of learned persons in
civil laws as judge and two merchanta to assist the judge.
6. The Admiralty court was established at Madras on July 10, 1686, with John
Grey as the judge and two assistants. Sir John Biggs, a professional lawyer, was
appointed Chief Justice in 1687. It expanded the Admiralty court's powers,
including the ability to raise naval forces and appoint officers.
7. The jurisdiction of the Governor and council over judicial matters was
transferred to the Admiralty court, which also handled appeals from the Mayor's
court.

Merits:
1. The separation of executive and judiciary was maintained, with the Governor
and council holding executive power, while the Admiralty court handled judicial
matters.
2. Justice was administered by a professional lawyer, ensuring cases were decided
according to English law, unlike before when lay judges made decisions based on
common sense.

Mayor's Court (1688):

1. Established in 1688 under the 1687 Charter issued by the East India Company,
not the British Crown.
2. The court was created after the Madras Government faced opposition from
Hindus in the Black Town over the imposition of house tax, leading to strikes and
protests.
3. The company formed a mixed corporation of natives and Englishmen to make
the tax more acceptable. This corporation included a Mayor, 12 Aldermen, and
over 60 Burgesses.
4. The Mayor and 3 senior Aldermen were British company servants, while the
remaining 9 Aldermen could be of any nationality.
5. 30 Burgesses were heads of various castes. The Mayor, 3 Aldermen, and 29
Burgesses were nominated by the company; the Governor and council selected the
Mayor and senior Aldermen.
6. The Mayor served for one year, while Aldermen could serve for life or until
leaving Madras. Outgoing Mayors could be re-elected.

8
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

7. Vacancies in the Aldermen were filled by the Mayor from the Burgesses.
8. The Mayor could be removed by the Aldermen and Burgesses, while an
Aldermen could be removed by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses.
9. The Governor and council had the power to remove any Mayor, Aldermen, or
Burgesses and replace them.
10. The Mayor’s court, part of the corporation, was a Court of Record. The Mayor
and Aldermen were the justices, assisted by a law expert, the Recorder.
11. Sir John Biggs was appointed as the first Recorder of the Mayor’s court.
12. The Mayor's court had the authority to hear civil and criminal cases, punish
with corporal punishment, imprisonment, or fines.
13. For civil cases exceeding 3 pagodas or criminal cases with a death sentence or
limb loss, appeals were referred to the Admiralty court. After 1704, appeals were
sent to the Governor and council.
14. After 1712, the Mayor’s court could impose a death sentence on natives, but
not on Englishmen.

Defects of Mayor's Court:

1. No separation between executive and judiciary. The Mayor and Aldermen were
part of the Governor's council, and the Governor and council could remove and
appoint members.
2. Judges were laymen with no legal expertise, making decisions based on common
sense rather than consistent legal principles. Despite the appointment of a legal
expert, the situation did not improve significantly.
3. Judges were not always honest or impartial and could be easily influenced or
tempted.

Choultry Court:
1. The jurisdiction of the Choultry court was reduced during this period. It could
only hear petty criminal cases and civil cases up to 2 pagodas.
2. Two Aldermen sat twice a week at the Choultry to handle cases.
3. In 1753, the Choultry's civil jurisdiction was transferred to the Court of Request,
but it continued to handle criminal cases until the 18th century.
4. By 1800, the Choultry court was completely abolished.
ii. Judicial Administration and development in Bombay before 1726

9
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

Introduction:
1. The Portuguese acquired the Island of Bombay from the King of Gujarat in
1534. In 1661, they transferred it to the British Crown as dowry for the Portuguese
princess's marriage.
2. In 1668, the British Crown transferred Bombay to the East India Company for
an annual rent of £10 under the Charter of 1668.
3. The Charter allowed the Company to create laws and ordinances for governing
Bombay, including imposing punishments (even death), provided they aligned with
English laws.
4. The Company's General Court or Court of Committees was authorized to make
laws and establish courts for resolving disputes. These laws were enacted in 1668
and implemented in Bombay in 1670.

First Stage (1670-1683)

- Bombay was under the Surat Presidency, and the Governor of Surat also served
as the ex officio Governor of Bombay.
- A Deputy Governor was appointed to administer Bombay under the control of the
Governor of Surat.

Judicial Plan (1670)

● The island of Bombay was divided into two divisions, each with its own
court.
● Each divisional court had 5 judges, with a quorum of 3 judges to hear cases.
● The courts were empowered to handle small theft and civil cases up to 200
xeraphins.
● Appeals from the divisional courts were referred to the court of the Deputy
Governor and council.
● Serious cases, including those involving crimes such as felony, murder, and
mutilation (over 200 xeraphins), were to be decided by the Governor and
Council.

Defects:
The traders are the judge and no Separation of power between executive and
judiciary

10
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

(Mr.Aungier was aware of these defects and so he requested the company to send a
law expert from England. But the company directed him to select an expert from
the servants of the company in India. Mr.Aungier selected Mr.George Wilcox and
with his advice, he prepared the judicial plan of 1672 for improving the existing
judicial system of Bombay.)

Judicial System in 1672:

1. By a proclamation on November 10, 1662 , Portuguese laws were
completely replaced by English laws, reorganizing the judicial system.
2. A Court of Judicature was established, with George Wilcox appointed as its
judges.
3. The court had the authority to hear both civil and criminal cases and handle
testimonies.
4. Appeals from the court were heard by the Governor and Council of
Bombay.
5. The court charged 5% of the suit's valuation from the litigant, though
plaintiffs with suits worth less than 60 xeraphins could sue for free.
6. The court was scheduled to sit once a week
7. In 1673-74, several Panjayats were established to resolve disputes among
local communities or individuals.

MERITS:
1. Under this plan regular courts with well defined jurisdiction was established and
were to sit regularly which enabled the court in disposing the cases within a
reasonable time.
2. The civil cases were to be decided with the help of jury by which impartial and
fair justice was rendered.
3. The administration of justice was inexpensive and the court fee was very
moderate.
4. The laws and procedures for the courts were clearly established, with the aim to
follow English substantive and procedural laws as much as possible.
5. The Court of Conscience and Panchayats were created to handle petty civil
cases, which helped reduce the burden on the Court of Judicature and eased the
difficulties for litigants.

11
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

6. Judges of the Court of Judicature were not allowed to engage in private trade or
business but were paid a salary of Rs. 2000 per year. This was intended to
encourage focus on their judicial duties and prevent bribery.

( Aungier implemented these reforms with great effort, earning praise for his
dedication to judicial independence and efforts to shield judges from bribery.
However, the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary was still
not fully established. George Wilcox, the first judge of the Court of Judicature,
passed away in 1674 and was succeeded by James Adams, who served only
briefly.In 1675, Niccolls became judge and strongly advocated for judicial
independence. However, his actions, such as refusing to follow the Bombay
Council's orders and criticizing a jury verdict, led to his dismissal for defying the
executive. After Niccolls' dismissal, Grey took over as judge until 1683, when the
Keignwin's rebellion took control of the Island of Bombay, halting the functioning
of the court.)

Second Stage 1684-1690 :

● 1683 Charter: The Court of Admiralty was established in 1684 with similar
guidelines as in Madras, empowering the state to manage maritime affairs
and regulate certain legal matters.
● 1691: Sidd Yakub, an admiral with royal authority, introduced reforms in the
legal and judicial systems of Bombay, which were later regarded as
important steps in Bombay's legal history.
● 1690-1718: During this period, Bombay saw significant development in its
legal and administrative structures.
● This period was considered as Black period of British era in Bombay.

Third stage 1718- 1726

● 1718: On March 25, the Court of Judicature was established with 5 English
judges and 5 Indian judges. These 5 Indian judges represented 5 major
communities: Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Portuguese, and Parsis.
● Chief justice and English judges belongs to governor and council. Three
english judges to constitute quorum and this court was to sit once in a week.

12
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

iii. Judicial Administration and development in Calcutta before 1726

● On 24th August, 1690 , Englishmen landed in Sutanuti (modern Kolkata)

and built a fortified factory known as Fort William.
● 1698: Prince Azim-ush-Shan, Subahdar of Bengal, granted zamindari rights
over three villages—Calcutta, Sutanuti, and Govindpur—to the East India
Company
● The company appointed collectors for each village, who established
zamindari courts to handle civil and criminal cases.
● 1699: Calcutta’s status was elevated to that of a Presidency. The Governor
and Council of Calcutta were entrusted with administrative and judicial
powers. Prior to this, prisoners from Calcutta were sent to Madras for trials,
as the Emperor had limited the company’s judicial privileges.
● In judicial system of Calcutta the office of collector become very important.
The collector was responsible for administering civil and criminal cases in
the regions under the East India Company.
● For criminal cases, the collector followed existing Mughal laws and dealt
mainly with petty crimes committed by English people. Punishments
included fines , whipping or imprisonment, incase of death sentences to be
confirmed by the Governor and Council.
● Incase of Zamindars to be executed it must be confirmed but the Nawab of
Murshidabad.
● For civil cases, the collector made decisions in a summary manner, adhering
to local customs and traditions. If no customs applied, the principles of
natural justice were followed.

3. Charter Act 1726 And Mayor's Court :

Charter of 1726:
1. The East India Company's commercial and political activities were growing
rapidly, and the company sought to avoid legal complications.
2. There was no formal judicial system in Bombay that English courts could
recognize, nor any clear machinery to administer justice.

13
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

3. The Mayor's Court was established in Madras in 1687 by the Company, not
the crown.
4. The Charter of 1726, granted by King George I on September 24th, 1726,
aimed to establish proper governance in the three Presidencies (Bombay,
Madras, and Calcutta).
5. It authorized the Governor and Council to make laws and ordinances to
regulate the corporation in each Presidency, but only with approval from the
Company's Court of Directors.
6. The Charter of 1726 is first-time to create subordinate courts in each of
the three Presidencies.

Mayor Court :
○ The Mayor's Court was established in Bombay, Calcutta and
Madras, serving as the judicial system for the Presidency's towns,
following corporate governance principles.
○ This court derived its authority from the King of England, not the East
India Company, and operated under the royal court's jurisdiction.
○ A quorum for the court required the Mayor or Senior Aldermen
and two other aldermen
○ The Mayor's Court was a court of record, authorized to hear all civil
cases. It exercised testamentary jurisdiction, issuing letters of
administration to heirs.
○ Summons were issued based on complaints, and failure to appear
could result in arrest warrants.
○ The court could set bail and issue an execution warrant for judgments.
○ Appeals were allowed to the Governor in Council within 14 days of
judgment.
○ Decisions involving amounts less than 100 Pagodas were final.
○ Cases involving 1000 Pagodas or more could be appealed to the King
in Council.
○ The Governor and five Senior Council members held criminal
jurisdiction in each Presidency town.
○ They were empowered to handle petty criminal cases, similar to
English Justices of the Peace.

14
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

Case Law :
1. Oath Pagoda case: or Pagoda Oath Case:
In Madras, Hindus gave evidence in the Court on Bhagavad Geetha Oath. Two
Hindu Merchants were put to jail by the Mayor’s Court for refusing to take the
pagoda oath which they said was contrary to their religion and the rules of the
castle. This made the Hindu Residents very furious and they approached the
Governor to interfere. So the Governor released those merchant on parole. At the
same time the Court was directed to pay regard to the religious rites and
ceremonies of the natives.
2. Hindu Woman’s Case: (1730)
A 12 year old boy (Hindu) left his mother and began to live with his
relatives, since his mother became Roman Catholic in Bombay. The mother
filed a suit for the custody of the boy in the Mayor’s Court. The Court
ordered the relatives to hand over the boy to his mother. On a complaint filed
by the head of the caste, the Governor in Council held that the Mayor’s
Court had no power to decide cases of religious nature or caste disputes of
the natives. The Governor removed the Mayor from his office.
3. Arab Merchant’s Case:
An Arab Merchant brought a suit in the Mayor’s Court for the recovery of
the valuable pearls which were alleged to have been escorted from him by a
man who saved him from the burning boat at the coast of Gujarat. The
Mayor’s Court consulted the Governor in Council. The Governor upheld the
jurisdiction of the Mayor’s Court. It suggested the Mayor’s Court not to try
the case as the defendant had been previously hired for piracy regarding the
same occurrence and acquitted.The Mayor’s Court ignored this and decreed
the suit. This was reversed by the Governor.

4. Sunku Rama Case -In 1735, the executive filed a suit against a person.
Sunku Rama, for a breach of contract before the Mayor's Court. The Court
of Appeal i.e., the Council directed the Mayor's Court to issue a warrant of
execution. The Mayor's Court displayed a difference towards Sunku Rama,
16 At this, the Council felt insulted and it issued orders to its solicitor to file
a complaint to the Council against the Mayor and each of the Aldermen for
not obeying the directions of the Court of Appeal. The Mayor's Court raised
legal objection to the relevance of the Council's step which was itself a party

15
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

to the suit. As the Court's records are silent on what happened later in this
case, perhaps at that stage, the Directors of the Company intervened and
advised both the litigants not to proceed further in that issue. It was
surprising to note that both the parties, the Mayor's Court and the
Governor-in-Council, justified their claims on the basis of the Charter of
1726.

The Charter Act of 1726 marked the establishment of British courts of justice in
India, laying the groundwork for future reforms, such as the Regulating Act of
1773. It created a legal bridge between English and Indian systems, influencing
the later codification of Indian law.

4. Charter Act 1753

1. In the year 1746, The French got the control of Madras Presidency.Because
of this Madras Corporation which was created after the charter of 1726 was
ceased to function.In the year 1749 Again British got the control of
Madras.To establish again Madras corporation King
2. George II again issued a new charter on the 8th January ,1753.The company
officials utilized this chance and tried to remove all the disadvantages of the
charter of 1726.The new charter of 1753 was made applicable to all the 3
Presidency Towns.New charter changed the method of appointment of
Mayor and Aldermen.Governor and Council got the power to appoint the
Aldermen.
3. Regarding selection of the Mayor, the corporation selected the names of 2
people and Governor and Council selected one of them as the Mayor every
year.This way Mayor became the puppet of the Governor and Council.This
way Mayor as well as Aldermen became the nominee of Government.And
Government got the full control of CorporationThis way Government got the
power to appoint the judge of the Mayors Court and remove him also if he
disobeyed the Government or Governor.
4. Mayor’s court lost all the autonomy and independence, and became
secondary in nature.The court was allowed to hear the Indian cases only if

16
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

both native Indian parties agreed and submitted the case to the Mayor's
court.
5. Mayor's court got the right to take action against the MayorNo person was
allowed to sit as a Judge if he was interested in the matter in anyway.Mayors
court got the power to hear the cases against the Government and
Government Defended themNow suitors deposited money with the
Government not to the Mayor's Court.
6. The new charter also created the new court called as Court of Request at
each presidency town to decide, cheaply and quickly cases up to 5 pagodas.
1 Pagoda equals to 3 Rupees.This court was established to help poor Indian
litigants who can not afford the expenses of the court.The court weekly sat
once , and was manned by commissioners between 8 to 24 in numberThe
government appointed the commissioners and every year half of the
commissioners got retired and those places were filled by the ballot method
by remaining commissioners.Commissioners sat in each court on rotationFor
small claims, cognizable by Requests court if people, plaintiff went to the
Mayors court, the rule was that Defendant was awarded costs, this way it
saved time and money also.Requests court got the power to hear the Indian
matters also.
7. Now there were 3 courts namely,
○ court of Request
○ Mayor's Court - Civil court Jurisdiction
○ Justice of the Peace and court of quarter sessions consisting of
Governor and Council
8. Court of Governor and Council – the court where appeal from the Mayors
court wentRegarding civil cases Privy Council in the England was the final
authorityThis charter introduced many changes but this charter took away
the Independence of Mayors Court , which was given to this court by the
charter of 1726
9. The East India Company with this charter also always followed the policy
not to break the customs of Hindus and Muslims.When both Indian parties
agreed at that time only the Mayor's court handled those cases.
10.As executive enjoyed more powers they appointed company servants as the
judges.The executives handled the cases in such a way it does not harm them
or did not harm the company servants or friends. In 1772 House of

17
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

Commons appointed a committee of secrecy to check the affairs of the east

India Company. The committee in its 7th report gave adverse report
regarding the Calcutta Judicial system. The reported stated that Mayors court
behaved as they wish in all the cases without following English law. As a
result of criticism.Supreme Court was Established at the Calcutta in the year
1774 The supreme court of Calcutta was Independent court and does not
work under company executive and consisted of professional lawyers who
knew English law in depth.

5. Warren Hastings Judicial Plan:

Warren Hastings remained Governor of Bengal from 1772 to 1774; in 1774 he was
promoted to the rank of Governor-General. He remained on this post till 1785. He.
was a competent and an efficient administrator. The Administration of justice at the
time Warren Hastings 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. Warren Hastings who assumed office of Governor
of Fort William on April 13, 1772, made strenuous efforts to remove the evils in
the existing judicial administration and revenue collection. For this purpose, he
appointed a committee consisting of the Governor and four members of the
Council is called the 'Committee of Circuit'. The Committee prepared a Judicial
Plan on August 15, 1772 to regulate the administration of justice and revenue
collection. This plan was popularly known as the 'Hastings Plan of 1772."

Hastings’s Judicial Plan of 1772: This Plan consisted of 37 regulations dealing

with civil and criminal laws. He divided the Diwani area of Bengal, Bihar and
Orissa into several districts, each having .in English officer called the 'Collector' as
its head. Thus, district was the unit of administration for justice and revenue
collection. The Collector was primarily responsible for collection of revenue.
The main features of Judicial Plan of 1772 are as under—
1. Reforms Made in Revenue Administration In- whole revenue system was
reorganized. The Revenue Boards at Murshidabad and Patna were abolished

18
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

and a supreme authority called the Board of Revenue was set up in Calcutta
which consisted of the Governor and all the members of the Council.
2. Reforms in civil court: Each district had a Mofussil Diwani Adalat (civil
court), overseen by the Collector, handling cases related to property,
marriage, debts, and more, with a cap of 500 rupees on its final judgments.
Appeals exceeding this amount were directed to the Sadar Diwani Adalat
in Calcutta, a higher appellate court.
○ Mofussil Diwani Adalat: Established in each district, presided over
by the Collector who acted as the judge.Handled civil cases like
property, inheritance, marriage, and contracts. Native laws officers,
Kazi and Pandits, assisted the Collector in applying Hindu and
Muslim laws.The court met twice a week and dealt with issues such as
caste and marriage customs.Cases involving Zamindari or Taluqdari
property were reserved for the Governor and Council. Appeals for
cases over Rs. 500 were heard by the Sadar Diwani Adalat in
Calcutta.
○ Small Causes Adalats: Set up in each Pergunnah to handle cases
worth up to Rs. 10. Headed by the Head Farmer of the region.
○ Sadar Diwani Adalat: Located in Calcutta, this court had appellate
jurisdiction over Mofussil Diwani Adalats for cases over Rs. 500.
Composed of the Governor, Council members, Diwan of Treasury,
and Chief Kanungos.
3. Reform made in Criminal Courts: Each district also had a Moffusil
Faujdari Adalat for criminal cases, guided by local legal authorities like
qazis and muftis, with oversight from the Collector. The highest criminal
court, Sadar Nizamat Adalat in Calcutta, managed appeals and severe
cases, requiring the Nawab’s consent for capital sentences.
○ the Mofussil Nizamat Adalat (or Fauzdari Adalat) : was set up in
each district to try serious offences such as murder, theft, and fraud.
These courts were assisted by Kazi, Mufti, and Moulvies, who
explained Mohammedan law. The Collector supervised the court,
ensuring fair proceedings.
○ Sadar Nizamat Adalat: At a higher level, the Sadar Nizamat Adalat
in Calcutta oversaw the Fouzdari Adalats. This court, presided by an
Indian judge (Daroga-i-Adalat), included the Chief Kazi, Chief Mufti,

19
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

and three Moulvies, and had the authority to revise decisions,

especially in capital cases. The Governor and Council had general
supervision over the proceedings to ensure justice.
○ Thus, Fouzdari Adalats were not empowered to award death sentence,
but they were required to transmit the evidence in capital cases with
their opinion to the Sadar Nizamat Court for final decision. Again,
fines over one hundred rupees were to be confirmed by the Sadar
Court, which alone could decree forfeiture or confiscation of property.
The dacoits were to be executed in their own village and the entire
village was fined. The family members of the dacoits were made
State-slaves.

4. Personal Laws : The plan respected personal laws for Hindus and Muslims,
ruling that cases involving personal matters be decided according to the
Koran for Muslims and the Shastra for Hindus.

Challenges: the excessive concentration of power with Collectors and inadequate

court numbers. This led to a New Plan in 1774, which replaced Collectors with
native revenue officers (Naibs) and established Provincial Councils to hear appeals,
aiming to improve judicial efficiency. These foundational changes under Hastings
set a framework for future judicial reforms, seeking impartial, accessible justice
across the provinces.

In 1774, Warren Hastings introduced a judicial restructuring that placed civil

justice administration under Provincial Councils, known as Provincial Sadar
Adalats, responsible for handling civil cases and appeals across districts. In 1775,
criminal jurisdiction was transferred to the Nawab's supervision, with Sadar
Nizamat Adalat under Nawab Mohammed Reza Khan’s authority.

By 1780, Hastings introduced a new judicial plan to separate revenue collection

from judiciary functions. Revenue continued to be managed by six Provincial
Councils across divisions like Calcutta and Patna. However, civil justice was now
handled by independent Provincial Diwani Adalats, overseen by appointed
Company officials who handled property disputes and inheritance cases

20
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

independently from revenue councils. These courts could delegate minor cases to
local zamindars or public officers, helping streamline judicial proceedings.

6. The Regulating Act 1773

1. Circumstances Prior to the Act of 1773:

The British Parliament grappled with defining its relationship with the East India
Company, which initially focused on trade in India but later acquired significant
political and territorial control. English law prohibited subjects from acquiring
territories except for the Crown. Lord Clive had previously suggested that the
Crown assume control of these territories, but Parliament faced three competing
views:
1. maintaining the Company's powers,
2. transferring full control to the Crown, or
3. establishing a partnership with the Crown as a dominant partner.
Parliament favored the third option and gradually began asserting control. on the
condition that it paid £400,000 annually to the Crown. Despite the Company’s
deteriorating finances and mounting debts, Parliament continued to extract funds,
asserting its right to Indian territories.

2. Reasons for Intervention: Various factors led Parliament to consider taking over
the Company, including:
1. Negative public opinion in England,
2. Corruption among Company officials,
3. Administrative complications from the dual government system, ( Robert
Clive - The company held Diwani rights (tax collection) in Bengal, while the
Nawab had Nizamat rights (judicial and policing). However, the company
controlled both powers, neglecting farmers and public welfare to focus
solely on revenue.
4. Poor judicial administration,
5. Absence of central authority,
6. Heavy Company debts and financial strain,
7. Defeat by Haider Ali in 1769, ( first Anglo Mysore war British was defeated
by hyder Ali)

21
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

8. Severe Bengal famine, ( The 1770 Bengal famine led to millions of deaths, a
severe economic downturn, reduced agricultural productivity, declining tax
revenues, and disrupted trade.). and
9. The Company's 1772 request for a £1 million loan.

3. Parliamentary Committees : Parliament appointed the Select and Secret

Committees to investigate the Company’s financial and administrative issues. They
identified corruption and oppression in the Company’s judicial and administrative
systems.

4. Provision of the Act :

● The Regulating Act 1773 elevated the Governor of Bengal, Warren Hastings,
to the position of Governor-General of Bengal, with an executive council of
four members to assist him. They were required to function according to the
majority rule.
● It made the governors of the Bombay and Madras presidencies subordinate
to the governor-general of Benga.
● In 1773, the Company renewed its loan appeal, prompting Parliament to
declare that territorial acquisitions gained through military force or treaties
belonged to the State.
● This led to the enactment of two laws, establishing a Supreme Court in
Calcutta with comprehensive jurisdiction over civil, criminal, ecclesiastical,
and admiralty matters, aiming to bring the Company’s actions under the
Crown’s oversight and enforce legal accountability.
● The Regulating Act 1773 established a Supreme Court at Fort William in
Calcutta in 1774, comprising a Chief Justice and three other judges, to
administer British legal principles.
● Sir Elijah Impey was the first Chief Justice.
● The Regulating Act of 1773 prohibited company servants from engaging in
private trade or accepting bribes, aiming to curb corruption.
● The Regulating Act 1773 limited the company's dividends to 6% until it
repaid a government loan and restricted the terms of the Court of Directors
to four years.

22
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

5. Drawback :
● The Regulating Act 1773 did not grant the Governor-General veto authority,
leaving him vulnerable to being frequently overruled by the majority
decisions of his council members.
● The Regulating Act 1773 failed to clearly outline the powers and jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court at Fort William, causing confusion and conflicts over
authority between the Governor-General
● By centralising power in the Governor-General, the Regulating Act 1773
diminished the authority and effectiveness of the governors in the Bombay
and Madras presidencies, leading to administrative inefficiencies and
corruption.
● Act 1773 did not give Parliament sufficient powers to scrutinise the
Governor-General's reports and accountability in India's administration.

7. Supreme Court in Calcutta

Introduction:
The British initially came to India as merchants, setting up factories that provided
employment opportunities. These factories attracted locals, leading to the
development of areas known as mofussil regions. Over time, the British extended
control over the native population. As trade and business grew, the need for an
organized administrative and judicial system arose. This led to the gradual
establishment of British governance through various charters, culminating in the
development of a structured administration. Notable milestones include the
Regulating Act of 1773 and the Act of Settlement, which played key roles in
shaping India's legal history. The Supreme Court of Judicature was established in
Calcutta in 1774 under the Regulating Act, replacing the Mayor's Court. It
functioned as British India's highest court until 1862, when the Calcutta High
Court was formed under the Indian High Courts Act of 1861.
Initially, the court claimed jurisdiction over Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha, leading to
conflicts with the Supreme Council of Bengal. These disputes were resolved by the
Bengal Judicature Act of 1781, which limited the court's jurisdiction to residents of
Calcutta and British subjects in the region. The original courthouse, located near

23
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

the Writers' Buildings, also served as Calcutta's Town Hall. It was demolished in
1792 and replaced by a new structure in 1832.
1. Supreme Court of Judicature, 1774 :
On March 26, 1774, King George III granted a Charter of Justice to establish the
Supreme Court in Calcutta. It was set up on October 22, 1774, and began operating
in January 1775. This was the first attempt to create an independent judicial system
in India. The Supreme Court had one Chief Justice and three Puisne Judges. The
judges were required to be Barristers-at-Law from England or Ireland with at least
five years of experience. The first appointments included Sir Elijah Impey as Chief
Justice, and Robert Chambers, Stephen Caesar Lemaitre, and John Hyde as Puisne
Judges, all chosen by the king.

2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature, 1774 :

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction primarily covered Calcutta, with extensions to
British subjects or those employed by the East India Company in Bengal, Bihar,
and Orissa. It also had authority over individuals who voluntarily submitted to its
rulings and in cases involving amounts over 500 rupees. However, the Regulating
Act of 1773 and the Charter of 1774 did not specify which laws to apply in cases
involving Indians, creating challenges in mixed cases. The Governor-General and
his council were outside the court’s jurisdiction, except in cases of felony or
treason. Crimes or misdemeanors by the Governor-General, council members, or
judges could be tried by the King's Bench in England, which could summon
witnesses in India. For serious offenses against the Regulating Act, Parliament
could also examine witnesses directly in India.
In criminal cases, trials were held with both a Grand Jury and a Petty Jury.

● Legislative Power : The Supreme Court could set its procedures, though
these required approval by the King-in-Council. The Governor-General and
Council could make laws, but these had to be registered with the Supreme
Court to take effect.
● Miscellaneous Provisions : Under the Regulating Act of 1773, officials,
including the Governor-General, council members, and Supreme Court
judges, were prohibited from accepting gifts. However, councilors, surgeons,
and physicians were exceptions to this rule. The Supreme Court also had

24
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

"procedendo" power, allowing it to order lower courts to proceed to

judgment without specific instructions.
● Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court issued probate (approval of
wills) and letters of administration for British subjects in Bengal, Bihar, and
Orissa. If there was no executor, the court could appoint one, as well as
guardians for infants or individuals with mental incapacities.
● Admiralty Jurisdiction: The court could try maritime cases and crimes
committed on the high seas. For crimes occurring offshore or on ships
around Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, the court, with a petty jury, held
jurisdiction over individuals employed by the company or indirectly
involved.
● Appellate Jurisdiction : Appeals from other courts could go to the Supreme
Court, and cases valued over 1,000 rupees could be further appealed to the
King-in-Council in England.
● Case Law :
1. Raja Nand Case
Raja Nand Kumar, a Hindu Brahmin and influential Zamindar in Bengal, was loyal
to the British East India Company since the time of Robert Clive. He was known as
the "black colonel" by the company. The council of Bengal, where Nand Kumar
was involved, was divided into two rival factions. The majority, including Francis,
Clavering, and Monson, opposed the Governor-General, Warren Hastings.
In March 1775, Nand Kumar accused Hastings of bribery, claiming that Hastings
had accepted a large sum in 1772 to appoint Nand Kumar's son as Diwan and
another bribe from Munni Begum to make her the guardian of the Nawab. Nand
Kumar sent a letter with these allegations to Francis, which was presented in the
council. Monson then moved to summon Nand Kumar to prove his charges.
Hastings opposed this, arguing that he shouldn't be judged by his own council, and
suggested that Nand Kumar take his complaint to the Supreme Court instead.
Despite Hastings’ objection, the majority voted to call Nand Kumar before the
council. When Nand Kumar appeared, the majority found the charges against
Hastings to be true and demanded that Hastings deposit the bribe money into the
company’s treasury. Hastings, however, believed that the council had no authority
to investigate the charges. This led to a bitter rivalry between Hastings and Nand
Kumar, with Hastings looking for a chance to retaliate.

25
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

Facts of the case:- Soon after, Nand Kumar was along with Fawkes and Radha
Charan were charged and arrested for conspiracy at the instance of Hastings and
barbell.In order to bring further disgrace to Raja Nand Kumar, Hastings
manipulated another case of forgery against him at the instance of one Mohan
Prasad in the conspiracy case. The Supreme Court in its decision of July 1775
fined Fawkes but reserved its judgment against Nand Kumar on the grounds of
pending fraud case. The charge against Nand Kumar in the forgery case was that he
had forged a bond in 1770.

Judgement : The council protested against Nand Kumar's charge in the Supreme
Court but the Supreme Court proceeded with the case unheeded. Finally, Nand
Kumar was tried by the jury of twelve Englishmen who returned a verdict of 'guilty
and consequently, the Supreme Court sentenced him to death under an act of the
British parliament called the Forgery Act which was passed as early as 1728.
Serious efforts were made to save the life of Nand Kumar and an application for
granting leave to appeal to the king-in-council was moved in the Supreme Court
but the same was rejected. Another petition for recommending the case for mercy
to the British council was also turned down by the Supreme Court. The sentence
passed by the Supreme Court was duly executed by hanging Nand Kumar to death
on August 5, 1775.In this way, Hastings succeeded in getting rid of Nand Kumar.

2. The Cossijurah Case (1779-80)

Raja surenderna rainn Zamindar of Cossijurah was under a heavy debt to

Kashinath Babu. Though Kashinat Bab tried to recover the money from the Raja
through the Board of Revenue at Calcutta his efforts proved in vain. He therefore
filed a civil suit against the Raja of Cossijurah in the Supreme Court at Calcutta.
He also fite an affidavit on 13th August, 1777 stating that the Raja being a
Zamindar, was employed in the collection of revenues and was thus within the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a writ of Capias for
the Raja's arrest. Being afraid of the arrest the Raja avoided service of writ by
hiding himself. The Collector of Midnapur, in whose district the Raja resided,
informed the Council about these developments. The Council, after seeking legal
advice from its Advocate-General, issued a notification informing all the
Landholders that they need not pay attention to the process of the Supreme Court

26
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

unless they were either servants of the Company or had accepted the Court's
jurisdiction by their own consent. The Raja was also specially informed by the
Council and, therefore, his people crave away the Sheriff of the Supreme Court
when that official came with a writ to arrest the Raja of Cossijurah. The Supreme
Court issued another writ of sequestration on 12thNovember, 1779 to seize the
property of the Raja in order to compel his appearance in the Supreme Court. This
time the Sherriff of Calcutta. With a force of sixty or seventy armed force men,
marched to Cossijurah in order to execute the writ, they imprisoned the Raja and it
is said that the Englishmen outraged the sanctity of the family idol. In the
meantime, the Governor-General and Council directed Colonel Ahmuty,
commander of the armed forces near Midnapur to intercept and arrest the Sheriff
with his party and release the Raja from arrest. Colonel Ahmuty sent Lieutenant
Bamford with two companies of sepoysto arrest the Sheriff with his party. On 3rd
December, 1779 Bamford, with the help of Willaim Swanston, arrested the Sheriff
and his party while they were returning and kept them in confinement for three
days. Later on, they were sent to Calcutta as prisoners. Council released the
Sheriff's party and directed Colonel Ahmutty to resist any further writ of the
Supreme Court.

3. The Patna Case (1777-79)

1777-1779 Shahbah Beg Khan, native of Kabul came to India and settled
down in Patna. He married Nadirah Begum and acquired a large amount of
money while in the service of company. He had no issue, therefore he
invited his nephew Bhadur Beg from Kabul to reside with him the intention
to adopt him. But before he could do so he died in December, 1776. Bahdur
Beg took the first step and filed a suit against the Begum in the Patna
Provincial Council for getting right over the property. In the provincial Court
the case placed before Muhammadan law officers. The officers after a full
hearing reported to the council that gift deeds were forged documents and no
gift was made in favour of Nadirah Begum by the deceased.. They also
reported that the nephew, Bahadur Beg court not be adopted under Muslim
law.
Therefore, recommended that property be divided into four parts , three
fourth of the property were to be given to Bahadur Beg on the basis of
consanguinity (relationship by blood) and also heir of the deceased and the

27
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

one fourth of property be given to the widow. Nadirah Begum was

dissatisfied with the decision of the provincial Council, and she filed an
appeal before the Sadar-Diwani- Adalat at Calcutta. Due to their busy
routine work they could not consider the matter for a long time. With
indifferent approach of the court, she filed a suit in the Supreme Court
against Bahadur Beg, Kazi and mufti for assault, battery, unlawful
imprisonment and claimed 3 lakhs as damages. The Supreme Court issued
ordered to arrest of Bahadur Beg, Kazi and mufti. Both the parties were
Muslims to which the Mohammedan Law of inheritance was to apply, it was
purely a matter of personal law to Moham means. There was no written
agreement between the parties to submit the case to the Supreme Court for a
decision.

8. Amendment Act 1781 or Act of Settlement, 1781

Preamble Intent:
- The Act aimed to support lawful governance in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa,
ensuring proper revenue collection and the protection of local laws, customs,
rights, and privileges.
- It sought to address errors in the 1773 Regulating Act and to provide relief for
individuals imprisoned by the Supreme Court in Calcutta.

Important Provisions:

1. Jurisdictional Immunity: The Governor-General (GG) and Council were

exempted from Supreme Court jurisdiction for actions done in their official
capacities. However, they and their agents had no immunity if tried in English
courts.

2. Exclusion of Revenue Matters - Revenue-related issues and cases arising from

revenue collection were excluded from the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

3. Application of Local Laws:

- English law did not apply to natives in matters of succession, inheritance,
property, contracts, and transactions. These were governed by their own laws.

28
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

- In cases involving parties of different religions, the defendant’s laws would

apply.

4. Jurisdiction in Civil and Wrongful Acts: The Supreme Court could hear cases
involving wrongful acts (trespass) and civil cases if parties agreed in writing.

5. Exemptions for Judicial Officers : The Supreme Court could not entertain cases
against judicial officers for acts done in a judicial capacity, nor against their
subordinates for similar actions.

6. Recognition of Provincial Courts: The Act recognized Civil and Criminal

Provincial Courts (Company's Courts) as independent from the Supreme Court, a
reversal of the 1773 Regulating Act.

7. Sadar Diwani Adalat: Established as the Court of Appeal for county courts in
civil cases, it served as a Court of Record, with its judgments final except for cases
involving sums of Rs 5000 or more, which could be appealed to the
King-in-Council.

8. Regulatory Power for Provincial Courts; The GG and Council were empowered
to create regulations for Provincial Councils and Courts independently of the
Supreme Court.

9. Family Rights in Punishment: Recognized the right of family heads to impose

certain punishments on family members.

10. Indemnity Provisions: Released those arrested in the Patna case and provided
indemnity for the GG, Council, and officers acting under their orders from 1770 to
1780 regarding disobedience to Supreme Court orders.

Major Defects of the Act:

1. Bias Against Rule of Law:
- The Act favored the GG and Council over the Supreme Court, reflecting a
British policy choice to support the executive branch in establishing control over

29
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

Indian territories. This decision was criticized as an erosion of judicial

independence.

2. Unclear Relationship with the British Crown:

- The Act failed to clarify the relationship between Indian territories and the
British Crown, avoiding a formal policy declaration as the British were still
consolidating control.

3. Ambiguity on "British Subjects":

- The term "British Subjects" was not clearly defined, leaving it uncertain if
Hindu and Muslim natives were included.

4. Dual Court Jurisdiction Uncertainty:

- The Act did not clarify whether Provincial Courts had concurrent or exclusive
jurisdiction alongside the Supreme Court, leading to continued distinctions
between Presidency towns and the Moffussil (outlying areas).

Criticisms:
- The Act’s measures were seen as a “crude and unsatisfactory” solution to the
ongoing administrative and jurisdictional challenges in British-controlled India.

9. Pitt's India Act 1784

The Pitt's India Act, 1784 also called the East India Company Act, 1784 was
passed by the British Parliament to correct the defects of the Regulating Act of
1773. This act resulted in dual control of British possessions in India by the British
government and the Company with the final authority resting with the government.
This act continued in effect until 1858

Provisions of the Act

● For political matters, the Board of Control was created and for commercial
affairs, the Court of Directors was appointed.The Board of Control took care
of civil and military affairs. It comprised of 6 people:
A. Secretary of State (Board President)
B. Chancellor of the Exchequer

30
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

C. Four Privy Councillors

● In this dual system of control, the company was represented by the Court of
Directors and theBritish government by the Board of Control.
● The act mandated that all civil and military offi cers disclose their property
in India and Britain within two months of joining.
● The Governor-General’s council’s strength was reduced to three members.
One of the three would be the Commander-in-Chief of the British Crown’s
army in India.
● The Presidencies of Madras and Bombay became subordinate to the Bengal
Presidency. In effect, Calcutta became the capital of the British possessions
in India.
Features of Pitt’s India Act
● This act made a distinction between the commercial and political activities
of the East IndiaCompany.
● For the first time, the term ‘British possessions in India’ was used. Pitt’s
India Act 1784 act gave the British government direct control over Indian
administration.
● The Company became subordinate to the British government unlike as in the
previous Regulating Act of 1773, where the government only sought to
‘regulate’ matters and not take over.
● This act established the British Crown’s authority in the civil and military
administration of its Indian territories. Commercial activities were still a
monopoly of the Company.

Defects of Pitt’s India Act

1. The reduction of executive council members gave the Governor-General an
extra edge. This is sobecause the Governor-General needed only one vote
from the executive council for theimplementation of his wilful decisions.
2. The clash of powers between the executive council and the
Governor-General in case of any deadlock regarding voting on a certain
decision-making.
3. The Governor-General was deprived of his military powers while he was the
supreme commander of the East India Company, and the Parliament was
situated in England. During emergency situations, sudden military decisions

31
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

are to be taken, but due to Pitt’s India Act 1784, the GovernorGeneral was
left with no military powers.
4. The powers of the Governor-General, the Board of Control, and the Court of
Directors were not clearly described.

10. Lord Cornwallis Judicial Reforms

Cornwallis laid down two key conditions:

1. the Governor-General would have the power to override his council, and
2. the roles of Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief would be merged
into one position.
These conditions were accepted, making the Governor-General the effective ruler
of British India under the Board of Control and Court of Directors, successfully
avoiding the issues faced by Hastings. The Governor-General and Council became
the Governor-General-in-Council until 1947.

Cornwallis was given specific instructions to address land revenue, improve

administration, and reform the judicial system. This included unifying the roles of
Revenue Collector, Civil Judge, and Magistrate to streamline processes and ensure
justice. European-style justice was to be introduced, with European judges
handling civil cases, while criminal cases were managed by Muslim judiciary
officers. Cornwallis was also tasked with overseeing Company servants' wealth
accumulation. The main goals were economy, reform, and purification.

Though Cornwallis lacked detailed knowledge of Indian affairs, he understood the

flaws in previous policies and accepted the Governor-General role only when
military command was integrated with it, making sound governance a priority over
territorial expansion.

Cornwallis' Reforms and Judicial Administration:

Dependence on Advisors ( Lacked experience in Indian affairs); relied heavily on:

1. Sir John Shore: Revenue expert, invaluable advisor.
2. Jonathan Duncan: Future Governor of Bombay.

32
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

3. Charles : Chairman of the Directors.

4. James Grant: President of the Board of Control.
5. Charles Stuart: Commercial expert.
6. Sir William Jones: Eminent Oriental scholar and Supreme Court Judge.

Initial Condition :
- Warren Hastings had separated revenue collection from justice administration.
- Existing system: Mofussil Diwani Adalat (civil courts) and criminal courts.
- Complex, expensive, corrupt, and inefficient.

Cornwallis’ Reforms:
- Implemented reforms in three phases : 1787, 1790, and 1793.
- Goals: Simplicity, economy, efficiency, and eradication of corruption.

Judicial Plan of 1787:

a. Unified revenue collection and judicial functions under the Collector

b. Reduced districts from 36 to 23, each managed by a British Collector
c. Responsible for revenue collection, civil cases, and magisterial duties.
d. Decided local civil disputes and succession matters.
e. Appeals from the Collector’s court went to:
i. Sadar Diwani Adalat for civil cases.
ii. King-in-Council in England for higher matters.
f. Appointed Indian Registrars for petty civil cases (up to Rs. 200).
Decisions by registrar are to be countersigned by Collectors to ensure
fairness.
g. In 1787 : Minimal reforms initially; focus remained on understanding flaws.

Judicial plan 1790: before drafting this plan Lord corwallis has addressed the
draw back in criminal jurisdiction- they are
a. Robbery, murder, and crime rampant; zamindars protected offenders.
b. Judges underpaid and corrupt; cases delayed; poor prison conditions.
c. Cornwallis aimed to address these issues with:
1 Better salaries for judges and officials.

33
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

2 Security of tenure.
3 Standardization of punishments.

Features of Judicial Plan 1790:

1. Unified judiciary and executive under English officials improved efficiency.
2. Marked a shift towards European legal principles and centralized control.
3. Criminal justice reforms improved public safety and judicial credibility.
4. The districts were restructured into four divisions: Murshidabad, Calcutta,
Dacca, and Patna.
5. District-level criminal courts, known as Mofussil Faujdari Courts, were
replaced with the Court of Circuits.
6. Courts of Circuit: Courts of Circuit were created in each division and
presided over by two company officials, assisted by Muslim law officers
(Qazi and Mufti). These were mobile courts, traveling to each district in
their division twice a year to handle criminal cases.
7. Judges' salaries across all courts were standardized and increased to mitigate
corruption in the judicial system.
8. Collectors were required to submit bi-annual and annual reports on the
functioning of courts (Magistrate, Mal Adalat, and Mofussil Diwani Adalat)
to the British Parliament.
9. The Nawab's position, which previously oversaw the Sadr Nizamat Adalat,
was abolished due to inefficiency in criminal justice administration. The
court was now presided over by the Governor-General-in-Council.
10.Court fees were implemented to reduce the burden on courts. Fees were
charged for hiring pleaders and summoning witnesses.

Defects of the Judicial Plan of 1790

● Magistrates' responses to a questionnaire highlighted significant flaws in the

criminal justice system, prompting Cornwallis to consider major reforms.
- Defects in the structure of criminal courts. - Inadequacies in the Muslim
law of crimes.
● Complete abolition of nawab court.ese mobile courts were overwhelmed
with cases, causing delays in moving between districts. Some districts could
not be visited twice annually as planned due to these delays.

34
HCL Notes - By Prof. Kiruthika

● Excessive concentration of administrative and judicial powers in the hands

of the collectors led to frequent abuse of authority.

Judicial Plan of 1793 -

● The Collector’s judicial powers were removed; he now focused only on

revenue collection. Revenue courts (Mal Adalats), previously presided over
by Collectors, were abolished. Their powers and pending cases were
transferred to Mofussil Diwani Adalats (civil courts).
● The Governor-General and his council could be tried in court for any
wrongful actions. Individuals could sue the government, and cases were
heard in the Diwani Courts.
● Agreement for Court Jurisdiction - Indians and British subjects had to sign a
bond agreeing to resolve disputes through court.
● Four Provincial Courts of Appeal were set up in Patna, Calcutta,
Murshidabad, and Dacca. These courts handled appeals from district courts
(Mofussil Adalats) within three months. Cases over ₹5000 were referred to
the King-in-Council.
● Native officers were appointed as Munsiffs (judges in Munsiff courts) for
small cases (up to ₹50). Zamindars and Tehsildars also served as Munsiffs.
Personal laws of Hindus and Muslims were applied in marriage, inheritance,
and religious matters, with native officers assisting in their interpretation.

35