Module IV

Judicial System in Ancient,

Medieval and Post-Independent
India
Charter of 1726 and Establishment of Corporations
at all three Presidency Towns
The Charter is issued by King George I on 24th September 1726.

This charter established uniform judicial system in each presidency towns.

The charter established civil and criminal courts in the Presidency towns and these courts
derived their authority from the Crown not from the company.

Therefore, these courts could be designated as ‘Royal Courts’. Appeals from these courts were
allowed to Privy Council in England.

Reasons for the New Charter?

According to the Charter of 1726 the three presidencies of Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta had to
form corporations.

The corporation was to consist of a Mayor and nine Aldermen.

2
Charter of 1726 and Establishment of Corporations
at all three Presidency Towns
Both the Mayor and seven Aldermen had to be natural-born Britain subjects and the other two Aldermen could be
natives.

The tenure of the Mayor was a year and after that he continued as the Aldermen.

The First Mayor and the Aldermen would be nominated by the Charter and thereafter the nomination of the mayor
would be done by the Aldermen and the retiring Mayor on an annual basis amongst the Aldermen.

The Aldermen could continue in office throughout his life or as long as he lived in the presidency town.

The vacancy among the Aldermen was filled by the Mayor and the Alderman from the inhabitants in the particular
presidency town.

The Governor and the Council had the power to dismiss or remove any aldermen based on a reasonable cause against
him.

The Alderman also had the privilege to appeal his dismissal by the Governor and Council to the King Council (the
Privy Council of the British Crown).
3
 Establishment of Mayor’s Court
According to the Charter of 1726 the Mayor's Court was to be established in each presidency town consisting of a Mayor and 9
Aldermen.

The quorum was constituted by the Mayor or the Senior Aldermen along with two other Aldermen.

The Mayor’s Court was to be the Court of Record.

Under the Charter of 1726, the Mayor's Court could hear all civil cases arising in the Presidency Town and its subordinate factories.

Under this the Mayor’s Court also had jurisdiction to hear cases of testamentary succession, to issue letters of administration to
legal heirs of the deceased or his principal creditor, or to any other person who the court finds fit.

The Mayor’s Court was also given further powers to provide Probates of wills of the deceased and to punish any person guilty of
contempt.

The appeals of the Mayor's Court would be heard by the Governor and Council and the decision is final where the value of the case is
less than 100 pagodas and further appeal is allowed from the decisions of Governor and Council to the King in Council in England for
cases over the value of 1000 or more Pagodas.

As the Charter mentioned no law was, the English law was used to govern both the natives and Englishmen and the Mayor’s Court
was to function on the same procedure as followed in England.
4
 Mayor’s Court-Procedure
The Governor and Council were to appoint a Sheriff who was the officer of the Mayor’s
Court. His tenure was for a period of one year.

On the written complaint provided by the plaintiff, the court issues the summons by
directing the sheriff to order the defendant to appear in court on a set date and time
fixed by the court.

If the defendant doesn’t comply with the orders of the court, the court would issue a
warrant directing the sheriff to arrest the defendant and present him before the court.

The court could grant release to the defendant on bail or security.

Warrants of execution were issued by the Court.

On receiving the warrant the sheriff was to implement its judgement.

5
 Justice of peace and Administration of Justice
Under the Charter of 1726, the Justice of Peace were the Governor and the five senior
members of the Council.

The Justice of Peace could hear Criminal offences and punish and arrest offenders.

This was the first time English ideas and procedures of criminal justice were introduced in
India.

The session of the court was held four times a year, for the trial of all offences except the
offence of high treason committed within the Presidency and subordinate factories.

These were to be heard with the help of a jury.

The procedure of the courts has to be similar to the procedure of similar courts in
England.
6
 Legislature
For the better governance of the presidency towns the Governor and Council of
each presidency town were given powers to make their own bylaws, rules, and
ordinance.

Punishment could be provided for the breach of any bylaw, rules, and ordinances.
Any punishment prescribed and bylaws, rules, and ordinance made were to be
agreeable to reason and the English law.

Approval and confirmation by the Court of Directors of the company in England

was needed for the implementation of bylaws, rules and regulations made and
punishment prescribed.
7
 Merits of the Charter of 1726
The charter of 1726 provided for the establishment of a corporation in each presidency town.

It introduced the English laws into the country.

Uniform judicial system was introduced in all the three presidency towns of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras.

Royal courts were introduced in India. Under this charter, the court was to derive its authority from the Crown
and not the East India Company. Since it derived authority from the British Crown hence the Englishmen and
court in England considered the decisions of the court in India as equally authoritative.

Also introduced the system of appeal from India to the Privy Council in England.

The Charter attempted to separate the judiciary from the executive. The judges of the Mayor’s Court were not
appointed by the Governor and Council. The Governor and Council could dismiss the aldermen on reasonable
grounds but the aldermen could challenge the decision in the Privy Council in England.

The Charter made provision for the establishment of a local legislature in each presidency where laws could be
made keeping in mind the needs of the local people.
8
 Demerits of the Charter of 1726
Attempts to separate the judiciary from the executive was not totally successful for the following reasons;

1. The Governor and Council could dismiss the aldermen on reasonable grounds and the aldermen could
challenge this decision in the Privy Council but this privilege was only on paper.

2. Appeals from the Mayor’s Court were to be heard by the Governor and Council and the decision of the
Governor and Council was final for cases less than 1000 Pagodas.

3. The Governor and five senior council members were justices over peace who exercised the criminal
jurisdiction.

4. The justice system was in the hands of laymen as the people judging the cases had no understanding of the
law.

5. Indians did not have adequate representation in the Mayor’s Court since out of the nine Aldermen only two
Aldermen were natives.

9
 Difference between Mayor’s court in Charter of 1687 and 1726
1. Charter

2. Presidency towns

3. Jurisdiction

4. Appeal

5. Judges with legal knowledge and recorder

6. Constitution of the Court

7. Constitution of the quorum

8. Application of Laws
10
 Changes introduced to the Charter of 1753
Under this Charter, the Governor and Council had the power to appoint the Aldermen and the Mayor.

While appointing the Mayor a panel of names of two Aldermen was to be submitted to the Governor and
Council. Among the two names sent the Governor and Council would select one name for the office of the
Mayor.

Under the Charter of 1726 the jurisdiction of the courts were uncertain which became one of the important
causes for the conflict between the Mayor’s Court and the Governor and Council.

In the Chart of 1753 attempts were made to bring about certainty in the jurisdiction of the Mayor’s Court.
Under the Charter of 1753, the Mayor’s Court was given expressive rights to hear cases against the Mayor and
aldermen, but under such a situation the parties of the dispute were not allowed to sit as Judges of the Court.

Similarly, they were also to hear suits against the East India Company.

The Charter of 1753 also clearly instructed that the Mayor’s Court had no jurisdiction in cases concerning native
citizens unless both the parties agree to submit the case in front of the Mayor’s Court.

11
 Court of Request
Under the Charter of 1753 new court ‘the Court of Request’ was established at each Presidency
town.

The Court of Request could hear civil cases up to the extent of 5 Pagodas and the cases exceeding
the limit of 5 Pagodas were to be heard by the Mayor’s Court.

The purpose of the Court of Request was to provide cheap and quick redressal to the poor.

The Court of Request sat on a weekly basis.

It constituted 8 to 24 Commissioners who were to be elected by the Governor and Council and every
year half the Commissioners were to retire and these vacant places were to be filled by other
Commissioners by ballot method.

Three commissioners were to sit by rotation once a week.

The jurisdiction of the courts extended to all citizens including the natives in the presidency towns.
12
 Merits and De-Merits of Charter of 1753
Merits of Charter of 1753

The Charter of 1753 expressly stated that in the case of the natives the Mayor’s Court had jurisdiction when
both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to submit the case in front of the court.

It increased the jurisdiction of the Mayor’s Court and includes cases against mayor aldermen and the Company

In order to help the poor inhabitants of the presidency, the Court of Request was established which provided
quick and cheap justice to poor litigants with small claims.

Demerits of Charter of 1753

The Charter of 1753 made the judiciary subservient to the executive. The appointment of Mayor and Aldermen
was given to the Governor and Council and they already had to dismiss them from their post.

The judges of the Mayor’s Court were expected to give judgements by using English law and English procedures
but the Charter of 1753 made no provision for law experts thus the Mayor’s Court was forced to appoint
company servants as judges who were laymen.
13
 Adalat System-Self-Study
Topics for Self-Study

Warren Hastings Plan of 1772

Adalat System

14
 Regulating Act 1773, Charter of 1774 and Supreme Court of Judicature at
Calcutta
The regulating Act of 1773 was passed by the British Parliament to control the territories of the East India
Company majorly in Bengal. This act was passed due to the misgovernance by the British East India Company
that introduced a situation of bankruptcy and the British government had to interfere with the affairs of the
Company.

Main Provisions of the Regulating Act

This act permitted the company to retain its territorial possessions in India but sought to regulate the activities
and functioning of the company. It did not take over power completely, hence called ‘regulating’.

The act provided for the appointment of a Governor-General along with four Councilors in the Presidency of
Fort William (Calcutta), jointly called the Governor-General in Council.

As per this, Warren Hastings was appointed as the Governor-General of the Presidency of Fort William.

The Governors in Councils at Madras and Bombay were brought under the control of Bengal, especially in matters
of foreign policy.

15
Regulating Act 1773, Charter of 1774 and Supreme Court of Judicature at
Calcutta
The company directors were elected for a period of five years and one-fourth of them were to retire every year.
Also, they could not be re-elected.

The company directors were directed to make public all correspondence on revenue, civil and military matters
with Indian authorities before the British authorities.

On 26th March 1774, King George I granted a Charter to the company for the establishment of ‘The Supreme
Court of Judicature at Calcutta’.

The powers of the 1774 charter superseded the powers of the 1753 Charter thus bringing about the abolishment
of the Mayor’s court in Calcutta.

A Supreme Court of Judicature was established at Calcutta with Sir Elijah Impey as the first Chief Justice.
Judges were to come from England. It had civil and criminal jurisdiction over the British subjects and not
Indian natives.

16
Regulating Act 1773, Charter of 1774 and Supreme Court of Judicature at
Calcutta
The Supreme Court of Judicature came into existence on the 22nd of October and began its functions
in January 1775.

The Supreme Court was composed of Chief justice and three Puisne judges (regular judges).

The member of the Supreme Court had to be a barrister in Law for not less than five years standing.

The Charter also made provisions for the appointment and removal of judges as well as for the
jurisdiction, powers, and functions in accordance with the the Regulation act of 1773.

The Supreme Court was like the Court of Record; it had Civil, Criminal, Admiralty, and Ecclesiastes
and Writ jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court was a court of equity; it had to function in the same manner as the High Court of
Chancery in Great Britain.

17
Regulating Act 1773, Charter of 1774 and Supreme Court of Judicature at
Calcutta
The Supreme Court also had the power to make rules for its proceedings. The modification, approval, and
rejection of these rules were done by the King-in-Council.

The selection of the Sheriff was done by the Governor and Council. The Governor and Council selected the
Sheriff out of three nominees from the Supreme Court. The duty of the Sheriff was to execute the orders of
the court and also to detain in prison any person committed to him by the court.

The Supreme Court had the power to appoint subordinate officers based on necessity but the salaries of these
officers required the approval of the Governor-General and Council.

The Supreme Court also had the power to regulate the Court fees with permission of the Governor-General
and Council.

The supreme court controlled and supervised the work of the Court of Request, Court of Collector, quarter
sessions, Sheriffs, etc. They also had the authority to issue writs of certiorari, mandamus, error of procedendo
to these courts.

18
 Regulating Act 1773, Charter of 1774 and Supreme Court of Judicature at
Calcutta
Appeals
Civil Cases: Under Civil cases appeals could be filed from the Supreme Court to the King-In- Council with permission of
the Supreme Court for subject matters in dispute exceeding the monetary value of 1000, Pagodas. The petition seeking
permission must be filed within 6 months after the delivery of the judgement

Criminal Cases: Under criminal cases appeals can be heard from the Supreme Court to the King-In-Council with the
permission of the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court also has complete authority to reject or accept permission of
such appeals.

King-In-Council also had absolute discretion to admit or refuse any appeal from the Supreme Court.

1. Raja Nand Kumar’s Case-The first Judicial Murder

Topics for Self-Study

1. Kamaluddin Case-Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the Company’s servants working in the capacity of
collectors of Revenue.

2. The Patna Case-Jurisdiction of the SC to try the actions of the Judicial Officers.
19
Establishment of Supreme Court of Judicature at Madras and Bombay

The establishment of Supreme Court at Calcutta was on an experimental basis and the authorities preferred
to wait till they see the outcome of this new system.

The Supreme Courts at Madras and Bombay were established by King George III in 1800 and 1823,
respectively.

Before the establishment of the Supreme Court, there were Recorder’s courts in these presidencies. Their
jurisdiction was similar to that of the Supreme Court of Calcutta. But the Recorder’s Courts hardly
functioned, so the Parliament replaced them with Supreme Courts.

These two new Supreme Courts had the same powers, jurisdiction, functions, and limitations as that of the
Supreme Court at Calcutta. The Act of 1823 clearly mentioned in Section 17 that the newly established
Supreme Courts at Madras and Bombay would have the power to administer, carry out duties, and hold
powers of the same magnitude as the Supreme Court at Fort William in Calcutta.

These Supreme Courts functioned for a long period of time until 1862, when the high court came into force in
all these three places through the Indian High Courts Act, 1861.

20
 Laws Administered in the Supreme Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and
Madras
1. Common law as it prevailed in England in 1726.

2. The statute laws which prevailed in England in 1726.

3. Statute laws extended to India.

4. The Civil laws applied to the Admiralty and Ecclesiastical courts in England.

5. Regulations made by the Governor-General in Council and Governors in Council and registered in the SC
prior to the charter of 1833. (Renewed the East India Company’s contract for another 20 years-Govt of India
Act 1833).

6. Acts of Governor-General in Council passed in 1833

7. Hindu laws and practices in relation to inheritance and succession and all matters of contract between
Hindu’s.

8. Laws of Islam and practices in relation to inheritance and succession and all matters of contract between
Islam.

21
 Indian High Court Act, 1861 and Establishment of High Courts

The First War of Independence, 1857 by the Indian people made the political change inevitable and
this resulted in Crown’s assumption of the entire sovereignty of British India and Parliaments direct
responsibility for its government. This required a complete revision of the judicial system too. Hence
the Indian High Courts Act was passed in 1861.

The act of 1861 empowered the crown, through letters patent, to establish the High Court of
Judicature at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and abolish the Supreme Courts, the court of Sadar
Diwani Adalat and Sadar Nizamat Adalat.

The jurisdiction, number of judges to be appointed, their qualifications, tenure etc are provided by
the act.

The act also empowered the crown to establish High Courts in the North Western provinces

22
 High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
The High Court of Calcutta was established to be a Court of Record.

Initially the HC was to have ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction over the local limits of Calcutta or within such local limits as
may from time to time prescribed by law by any competent legal authority in India.

The court was authorized to try civil suits of every kind except those which will fall within the jurisdiction of the small causes
court.

The HC was also granted appellate jurisdiction to hear the matters from the subordinate civil courts.

In addition to this, HC enjoyed Original Criminal Jurisdiction, Admiralty jurisdiction, Probate and Matrimonial jurisdiction.

Procedure

The HC was given the power to make rules and orders to regulate the proceedings both Civil and Criminal matters brought
before it.

This period made an attempt to bring uniformity in the procedure of all HC’s and the subordinate courts.

An appeal from the decisions of the High Court where the value of the matter in issue is not less than Rs. 10,000/- was allowed
to Privy Council.
23
 High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Madras
High Court of Judicature at Bombay

On 26th June 1862, the queen established HC of Judicature at Bombay through the new letters patent.

It abolished the existing Supreme Court, the court of Sadar Diwani Adalat and Sadar Nizamat Adalat.

The letters patent was similar to that of the letters patent established HC of Judicature at Calcutta. Hence
the Bombay HC exercised all those powers the Calcutta HC exercised.

High Court of Judicature at Madras

Through the same letters patent, the crown established HC at Madras too.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad: Exercising the power vested by the Indian HC Act 1861, the crown
issued another letters patent on 1866 and established a HC at Allahabad. The other appellate courts were
abolished after establishing the HC of Judicature.

24
 Privy Council
The Privy Council was the judicial body, which heard appeals from various courts of the British colonies including India.

The origin of Privy Council can be traced back to the Norman Period of English. At the beginning of 11th century, the
Normans introduced a Central Government in England for controlling their executive, legislative as well as judicial
Departments.

There was a Supreme Federal Council of Normans called ‘Curia’ and it acted as the agency of Normans to rule England.
Through it the whole administration in England was controlled.

In a later period, Curia gets divided into ‘Curia Regis’ and ‘Magnum Concillium’.

Magnum Concillium was to deal with executive matters whereas Curia Regis performs judicial functions.

The Curia Regis was a small body consisting of high officials of the State, members of the Royal household and certain
clerks chosen by the Crown itself. Their duty was to advice the King in matters of legislation and administration and to
deliver a justice.

The Curia Regis acted as a final Appellate Court for England and English Empire.

25
 Privy Council
Gradually, the Curia Regis came to be considered as the advisory body of the King performing most
of the vital functions in the field of judicial administration.

Finally, during the regime of Henry II, there was a tremendous increase in the Judicial Functions of
Curia Regis and it lead to the formation of two different Common Law Courts in England. They are:

i. King-in-Parliament i.e. Court of House of Lords

ii. King-in-Council i.e. Court of Privy Council

The former became the highest Court of Appeal for the Courts in England while the later acted as the
highest Court of Appeal for all British Possessions and Settlements beyond the seas.

It acted as the advisory body of the King with regard to the affairs of the State.

Headquarter of the Privy Council was at Landon and its powers were implemented through the
means of royal proclamations, orders, instructions etc.
26
 Composition of Privy Council
For India the Privy Council acted as an appellate body since 1726 with the establishment of Mayor’s Court in India.

Initial years, the Privy Council used to do its work by means of a system of committees and subcommittees. However, the
committees did not have permanent existence and membership and mostly members were the persons with little judicial
experience. Naturally it affected the administration of justice.

In 1828, Lord Bourgham criticized such a constitution of Privy Council keeping in view the extent and importance of the
appellate jurisdiction of Privy Council. Subsequently, in 1830 when he became the Lord Chancellor, the British Parliament
enacted the Judicial Committee Act, 1833 in order to reform the constitution of Privy Council. In this way, officially the Privy
Council was created on 14th Aug. 1833 by the Act of the Parliament.

The Act empowered the Privy Council to hear appeals from the courts in British Colonies as per the provisions of the Act.

Accordingly, under this Act, the quorum of judicial committee of Privy Council was fixed to be four.

It composed of Lord President, Lord Chancellor and other Chancellors.

This quorum was reduced to three in 1844. In important matters the quorum consists of 5 members.

The recommendations to the Crown were given by the majority of quorum.

27
 Appeals from Courts in India to the Privy Council
Mayors Courts Established under Charters of 1726 : As pert the provisions of the Charter of 1726, Mayors Courts were
established in all three Presidency Towns. First appeal from the decisions of Mayor’s Court were allowed to the
Governor-in-Council in respective provinces and the second appeal to the Privy Council in England where the value of the
matter is more than 1000 pagodas.

Mayors Courts Established under Charters of 1753: This Charter re-established the Mayor’s Courts and reaffirmed the said
provisions of Appeal to Privy Council from Mayor’s Courts.

The Regulating Act, 1773, Charter of 1774 and Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta: Section 30 of this Charter granted a
right to appeal from the judgments of Supreme Court to Privy Council in Civil matters if following two conditions were followed;

i. Where the amount involved exceed 1000 pagodas.

ii. Where the appeal is filled within six month from the date of decision.

Act of 1797 Recorders Court at Madras and Bombay: Act of 1797 replaced the Mayor’s Courts at Madras and Bombay with
Recorders Court and provided for direct appeals from these Courts to the Privy Council.

28
Appeals from Courts in India to the Privy Council
Appeals from Supreme Court of Judicature: Civil Cases: In Civil cases, appeals are allowed to the King-In-
Council with permission of the Supreme Court for subject matters in dispute exceeding the monetary value of
1000 Pagodas. The petition seeking permission must be filed within 6 months after the delivery of the
judgement. In Criminal Cases, appeals can be heard by the King-In-Council with the permission of the Supreme
Court but the Supreme Court also has complete authority to reject or accept permission of such appeals.

Appeals to Privy Council from High Courts: High Courts were the amalgamation of King’s Courts and
Company’s Courts. Appeals from High Courts to Privy Council were allowed on all matters except in Criminal
matters. In addition to this, there was a provision of Special leave to Appeal in certain cases to be so certified by
the High Courts.

Appeals from Federal Court in India to Privy Council: The Government of India Act, 1935 provided for the
establishment of Federal Court in India. The Federal Court was given exclusive original jurisdiction to decide
disputes between the Center and constituent Units. The provision was made for filing of appeals from High
Courts to the Federal Court and from Federal Court to the Privy Council.

29
 Abolition of jurisdiction of Privy Council
In 1933, a white paper was issued by the British Government for establishment of the Supreme Court
in India so as to here appeal from Indian high Courts.

After Indian independence, the Federal Court (Enlargement of Jurisdiction) Act, 1948 was passed
and it enlarged the appellate jurisdiction of Federal Courts, it also abolished the old system of filing
direct appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council with or without Special Leave.

Finally in 1949, the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act was passed by the Indian
Government. This Act accordingly abolished the jurisdiction of Privy Council to entertain new
appeals and petitions as well as to dispose of any pending appeals and petitions.

It also provided for transfer of all cases filed before Privy Council to the Federal Court in India. All
powers of the Privy Council regarding appeals from the High Court were conferred to the Federal
Court.

30
 Government of India Act 1919-Merits
The Government of India Act 1919 was an act of the British Parliament that sought to
increase the participation of Indians in the administration of the country.

The act was based on the recommendations of a report by Edwin Montagu, the then
Secretary of State for India, and Lord Chelmsford, India’s Viceroy between 1916 and 1921.

Dyarchy introduced the concept of responsible government.

It introduced the concept of federal structure with a unitary bias.

The Governor-general and the governors had a lot of power to undermine the legislatures at
the centre and the provinces respectively.

There was an increased participation of Indians in the administration. They held some
portfolios like labour, health, etc.
31
Limitations of the Government of India Act 1919
For the first time, elections were known to the people and it created political
consciousness among the people.
The franchise was very limited. It did not extend to the common man.
Some Indian women also had the opportunity to vote for the first time.
Allocation of the seats for the central legislature was not based on population
but the ‘importance’ of the province in the eyes of the British.
Some legislations passed in 1919 severely restricted press and movement.
Despite the unanimous opposition of Indian members of the legislative
council, those bills were passed.

32
 Government of India Act 1935
After the Government of India Act,1919, the act of 1935 is the second
milestone in the history of more responsible government in India.

It played an important role in shaping the constitution of India.

Important Provisions

Option for states to form All India Federation and Provincial Autonomy.

Division of Power: The act provided for division of power between centre and
the provincial governments under three lists-federal list, provincial list and
the concurrent list. The viceroy was vested with the residuary power.

33
 Government of India Act 1935
Diarchy at the Centre: The subjects under the Federal List were divided into
two: Reserved and Transferred. The reserved subjects were controlled by the
Governor-General who administered them with the help of three counsellors
appointed by him. The transferred subjects were administered by the
Governor-General with his Council of Ministers (not more than 10). However,
the Governor-General had ‘special powers’ to interfere in the transferred
subjects also.
Bicameral Legislature would be established with Federal Assembly as the
lower house and the Council of States as the upper house.
Direct elections for the first time was introduced in India.
34
 Federal Court
Part IX, Chapter 1 of the Government of India Act (1935) made provisions for the
Federal Court of India. Section 200-218 of the act deals with Federal courts.

Establishment: Section 200 established the Federal Court of India. On 1st October
1937, the Federal Court was inaugurated at Delhi and the Viceroy administered oath
to Chief Justice and two other judges.

Composition of this court: It consisted of a Chief Justice and not more than six judges.
The number of judges could be increased by the King.

The judges of the court shall be appointed by the Chief Justice by warrant under the
Royal Sign.

35
 Federal Court
Tenure: These judges could hold office till attaining the age of 65 years unless resigned or
removed from office for misbehavior or infirmity of mind or body.

Qualification

1. He/she should have been a High Court judge in any province or of the federal state, or

2. He/she was a barrister in England or Northern Ireland for 10 years or had been a member of
the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland for 10 years, or

3. He/she has been a pleader in any High Court of India.

Salary: Section 201 of the Government of India Act (1935) specified the salaries, allowances
and pension of the judges and Chief Justice of the Federal Court. It was fixed by the His
Majesty by time to time. The Federal Court Order in Council of 1937 fixed it as RS. 7,000/ for
the Chief Justice and Rs. 5,000/- for the other judges.
36
 Federal Court
Section 202 : In case the office of the Chief Justice becomes vacant, any other
judge of the Federal Court is appointed to fill the vacancy temporarily until a
new Chief Justice is appointed. The Governor-General of India enjoyed
discretion in this regard.

Section 203: Federal court is a ‘Court of Record’ with its primary seating in
Delhi.

Original jurisdiction : Section 204 granted original jurisdiction on disputes

between the provinces and the federal state on determining the legal rights
with respect to the questions of law and question of fact to the Federal Court.
37
 Federal Court
Appellate Jurisdiction: Sections 205-209 granted appellate jurisdiction to the Court on matters
arising from disputes as appeals from the High Courts of British India. These sections
determined the scope and powers of the Court under appellate jurisdiction. It also gave power
to the Federal Legislature to expand the appellate jurisdiction of the Court to matters at the
discretion of the Governor-General of India.

1. Appeals in Constitutional Matters from the judgment, decree or final order of the High
Courts if the High Court certifies to the effect under Section 205.

2. In Civil Cases: Civil appeals which went to Privy Council were heard by the Federal Courts
under the Federal Court (Enhancement of Jurisdiction) Act 1947.

3. In Criminal Matters: The Federal Court (Enhancement of Jurisdiction) Act 1947 completely
abolished the system of appeal to Privy council.

38
 Federal Court
Advisory Jurisdiction: Section 213 granted powers to the Governor-General of India to
consult the Federal Court in matters of public importance on questions of law and fact.
Section 212 gave vast powers to the Federal Court by stating that the decisions of the
Court ‘shall be binding all across the country and on all subordinate courts.’
Section 214 granted powers to the Federal Court to make rules for the conduct of its
business with the Governor-General’s approval and monitoring.
The Federal Court of India was in existence till 1950 according to the provisions of
the Government of India Act (1935), later on it was replaced by the Supreme Court of
India.

39
Thank You

40