Kalinga University

Faculty of Law
Course- LLB 1st Sem
Subject- Legal and Constitutional History
Subject code- LLB101

Unit 1

Charters of East India Company

The East India Company which was created by the Charter of 1600 was essentially a trading
company. The Company established its first settlement at Surat as a result of Royal Firman
from the Mogul Emperor Jehangir. In course of time, it established its settlements at different
places along the coasts of India can broadly be divided into the following phases:

The early period of the East India Company’s rule, the British Government exercising its
control over the East India Company, the various reforms to associate Indian people with the
administration and to establish a centralized Government in India, the increasing agitation of
the Indian Nationalist Movement for Self-Government, the legislative measures to
accommodate the demand for self-Government, the devolution of powers and introduction of
provincial autonomy, attempt to introduce the principle of federalism and Independence and
partition of the country.

In brief, the Constitutional development in the country has been first towards centralization of
administration and then towards decentralization and introduction of rudiments of responsible
Government.

The advent of the British in India begins with Queen Elizabeth’s Charter of the year sixteen
hundred to some merchants of London who formed the East India Company to trade with the
East Indies. As a consequence of this Charter the British East India Company set up trading
establishments on the east and west coasts of India and in Bengal, called factories. Here in
this article we are giving you list and details of those Charters.

Charter of 1600
The first Charter of 1600 was mainly designed for trade in order to meet competition with the
Portuguese and the Dutch. Charter of 1600 laid the foundations for British Government in
India, although at that time no one in England dreamed for the establishment of British rule in
India. However, this Charter contained all the provisions necessary for the constitution of a
government according to law in any territory. This Charter granted permit to traffic and use
the trade of merchandise and to assemble themselves in any convenient place, to make
reasonable laws and ordinances for the good government of the East India Company. The
factories, on the other hand, were given power to make reasonable laws and impose
punishments.

Charter of 1661

The second Charter of 1661 gave East India Company the power to coin money, to
administer justice and to punish the interlopers. It also empowered the Company to constitute
Governor’s council and appoint other officers for their government. The Governor and
councils were authorised to administer justice in all causes, civil as well as criminal,
according to the laws of the kingdom and to execute judgment accordingly. Charter of 1661
gave the East India Company power to make peace or war with non-Christians, erect
fortifications, and seize interlopers. Thus it will be seen that various aspects of sovereignty
were conferred by the first Charter of sixteen hundred and they were further extended by the
Charter of 1661.

Charter of 1669, Territorial Sovereignty

For the first time the Charter of 1669 gave territorial sovereignty to the East India Company
by granting to it the port of Bombay. It also enlarged its administrative, judicial and other
governmental powers. The East India Company was also invested with Civil and Military
Government.

Charter of 1677, 1683, 1687

The Charter of 1677 empowered the Company to establish a mint at Bombay for coining
money, Indian rupees. The Charter 1683 gave the company full powers with respect to
declaring wars and making peace with heathen nation (the nation where people do not follow
Christianity) and the king established a Court of Justice with maritime jurisdiction. The
Courts were empowered to “adjudge and determine cases according to the rules of equity and
good conscience and the laws and customs of Merchants.”
 The Charter of 1687 invested the East India Company with authority to establish a
municipality and a Mayor’s Court at Madras. The court of Record with power to try civil and
criminal cases was also established. Up to 1765 a number of other charters were granted to
the East India Company which considerably extended its power. It established Municipality
in Bombay and Calcutta and empowered them to establish Courts of Requests. The East India
Company was given also power to cede territories and create probate and testamentary
jurisdiction.

Cease of Royal Charter

The affairs of the company in England as well as in India were governed by the Charters up to
1773. The Company’s Governors and Agents in India administered the Company’s affairs as
well as the territorial Governments of India according to rules of law and constitution as
provided in these charters. It was the step on the Indian soil for the creation of a constitutional
Government although in a very small strip of the territory. After 1683 the authority of the
Crown to give charters and create monopoly was challenged in England by the People and
the Parliament and on January, 1964, the Parliament had resolved that all subjects of England
have equal rights to trade with the East Indies unless prohibited by the Act of Parliament.
With the emergence of the supremacy of the Parliament after the Glorious Revolution of
1668 in England, the system of granting Royal Charter by the Crown ceased, and henceforth,
the Parliament itself assumed that power.

When the East India Company established its first settlement at Surat in 1613, the Mogul Emperor
had exempted the members and servants of the Company from the operation of the local law.
Therefore, the Company enjoyed limited legislative and judicial powers over its servants and
subsequently over the other inhabitants in the settlement. But, with the acquisition of
territories the character of the Company changed. When the Company was established it
enjoyed certain autonomy and it was constituted on the democratic principle. But, with the
acquisition of territory by the Company, the demand for greater governmental and
parliamentary control over the Company increased in Great Britain. The result was the
Regulating Act, 1773.

Settlements
Arrival of the British and the establishment of British East India Company was the outcome
of the Portuguese traders who earn enormous profit by selling their merchandise in India.
Being motivated by the successful business stories of the Portuguese a group of English
merchants -‘Merchant Adventurers’ formed a company- the East India Company in 1599 AD.
The Company received a royal charter from Queen Elizabeth I on December 31, 1600 AD
authorizing it to trade in the East. Queen was herself a share holder in the East India
Company.

Expansion in West and the South

Subsequently in 1608 AD, the East India Company sent Captain William Hawkins to the
court of the Mughal emperor Jahangir to secure royal patronage. He succeeded in getting
royal permit for the Company to establish its factories at various places on the Western coast
of India. Then in 1615 AD, Sir Thomas Roe was sent by Emperor James I of England to
Jahangir’s court, with a plea for more concession for the Company. Roe was very diplomatic
and thus successfully secured a royal charter giving the Company freedom to trade in the
whole of the Mughal territory. In the ensuing years the East India Company further expanded
its base and flourished though it also faced challenges from the Portuguese, the Dutch and the
French. The decisive moment came in 1662 AD, when Charles II of England married a
Portuguese princess Katherine, and received the island of Bombay as dowry which he
immediately gave to the East India Company in 1668 AD for 10 pounds per year. The
Company on the West coast shifted its business headquarters from Surat to Bombay
(Mumbai). In 1639 AD, the East India Company obtained the lease of the city of Madras
from the local king where it built Fort St. George to protect its factory. Later Madras was
made the South Indian headquarters of the Company.

Expansion in the East

After establishing its factories in south and west India, the company started to focus on east
India particularly Bengal a significant province Mughal empire. The governor of
Bengal Sujauddaula in 1651 AD, allowed the English Company to carry out its trade
activities in Bengal. A factory in Hugli was established and three villages -Sutanati,
Govindapur and Kolkata- were purchased in 1698 AD by the Company to build a factory
over there. Subsequently Fort William was raised in order to provide protection around the
factory. The present day Kolkata grew and developed on this very site.

Royal Farman by Emperor Farrukhsiyar

It was Mughal Emperor Farrukhsiyar which in 1717 AD, issued royal Farman (charter)
granting the company important trading facilities in Bengal which included the permission of
export and import British goods in Bengal without paying taxes. Under the Farman the
company was authorized the to issue Dastaks (passes) for the transportation of goods.

The Company after establishing firmly on the front of commerce and trade started dreaming
of becoming a ruling power in gradual manner.

Factors Responsible for the British to Emerge as Ruling Power in India

The major reasons that helped the British to be established as ruling power during next two
hundred years in India can be- inter alia -described as-

 the loss of central authority in India after the decline of the Mughal empire with the
death of Aurangzeb in 1707 AD and
 the prevailing political disunity among the Indian rulers, for instance, they often
sought assistance from the British for their own security, which gave a golden
opportunity to the foreigners to increasingly meddle in their internal affairs and
take advantage of their weaknesses

Conflicts among the European Powers

Major European Powers in India: The Portuguese, the Dutch, the British and the French
were the four major European powers who arrived in India to establish their trade links and
subsequently held colonial possessions. Major well as minor conflicts among them often took
place from time to time for commercial and political supremacy but in the end it were the
British who proved themselves most powerful after thrashing the other three and remained in
India for more than 200 years as ruling power. The Portuguese, who were the first to come to
India, set up their factories and colonial posts here and faced stiff competition from the Dutch
but the Dutch proved weak before them as they could not withstand the stiff competition of
the Portuguese and the British and thus retired from India.

Main Rivals: Ever since the British came to India they faced challenges from the Europeans
powers like the Dutch, the Portuguese and the French. The Portuguese and the Dutch were
not serious and potent rivals to the British. The only strong rival of the British were the
French who were also the last Europeans to come to India. The British efforts to establish a
complete monopoly over trade and commerce in India again and again brought them into
conflict with the French. Consequently three long battles were fought between these two
 European powers during a period of 20 years (1744 AD-1763 AD) with the aim of capturing
commercial as well as territorial control. The final decisive battle was fought on 22 January,
1763 AD at Wandiwash.

Carnatic Wars: It was the succession disputes in both the Carnatic and Hyderabad that
opened the gates for Europeans- the British and the French- to play the roles of middlemen
and thus in order to grind their axe both European powers had a golden opportunity for
intervention in support of various rival Indian claimants. At first the French, under Dupleix
who was a governor of Pondicherry emerged victorious both in the Carnatic and in
Hyderabad. The French were rewarded with Northern Sarkars by their claimant to throne
which the French officer Bussy controlled for seven years. However the French success
turned out to be short lived. They were checked by British forces under Robert Clive in 1751
AD. Robert Clive changed the course of the war. The French claimant was defeated the next
year. The French had to sign the treaty of Tirucirapally with the British. In the next Seven
Years’ War (1756 AD– 1763 AD)-third Carnatic War-both the French and British Armies
renewed their rivalry. The war began when French General Count De Lally invaded Madras
but was defeated by the British General Sir Eyre Coote. The British captured Pondicherry
(1761 AD) and Count De Lally was forced to surrender Karaikal and Jinji to them. Hence,
the French lost third Carnatic War at Wandiwash (1760 AD) and subsequently signed treaty
of Paris with the British in Europe.

Establishment of British Supremacy: The victory in Carnatic war prepared the ground for
the British to establish their supremacy in India and the French dream of an Indian empire
disappeared for ever. With the victory of Wandiwash the British East India Company had no
European rival left in India.The British became the master of this great country. Besides
having skilled leaders like Sir Eyre Coote, Major Stringer Lawrence, Robert Clive on their
side the British was also a strong naval power which was a decisive factor with them to
become credible rulers of India.

Mayor’s Court 1726

Before 1726 there were different judicial system functioning in the British Settlement, which were
increased in number by 1726. As a result the servants of the many, working at such different
settlements were subject to different sets of courts. There was, thus a lack of uniformity in the
British settlements, for the same offence wild entail different and sometimes Contrary Penal
 Consequence. There was also another factor which compelled the Company to have a
uniform law.

There were quite important distinguishing feature between the Company’s Mayer’s Court and the
Crown’s Mayor’s Courts established under the Charter of 126. The main differences are
given below,

(1) the Mayor’s Court under the Charter of 1687 was created by the Company while the
Mayor’s Courts under the Charter of 1726 drew their power directly from the Crown. Thus
the latter were on a superior footing than the former

(2) The Charter of 1687 created only one Mayor’s Court at Madras, it did not touch the
judicial system prevailing in other settlements, presidencies under the Company. The
Charter of 1726 created Mayor’ Courts at all the three presidencies that is Madras, Calcutta
and Bombay thus, for the first time, establishing a uniform judicial system.

(3) The Mayor’s Court established under the Charter of 1687 enjoyed both civil and criminal
jurisdiction. While the mayor’s courts established under the Charter of 1726 mayor’s
Courts established under the Charter of ( were given jurisdiction in civil matters including
testamentary and probate of wills jurisdiction, Criminal matters were left to be decided by
am within the jurisdiction of, Governor-in-Council which acted as a court in such matters.

(4) The Charter of 1726 made, for the first time, a provisions for a second appeal to the King-
in-Council which became a precursor of the Privy Council later on. Thus under this
Charter, the first appeal could be filed before the Governor-in-Council and the second
(although in some cases) appeal could be taken to the King-in-Council in England. The
Charter of 1687 did not make such provision. The appeal from the Mayor’s court could be
filed before the Admiralty Court.

(5) The Mayor’s Court established under the Charter of 1687 made a provision for the
representation of the natives on the court. The Crown’s Mayors Courts did not have any
such representation, though there was a provision I for the same in the Charter of 1726.
 (6) No doubt, the Crown’s Mayor’s Courts established under the charter of 1726 were definitely
superior courts so far as their status is concerned, but in strict judicial and legal manner, the
Company’s Mayor’s Court was better equipped, for there was a provision for a lawyer-
member who was to be called the Recorder. The Charter of 1726 although it purported to
improve the judicial system in India, did not make any such provision. . Thus the Courts
established in 1726 were mostly composed of Company’s civil servants who did not have
sufficient experience in legal matters.

(7) There was yet another important distinction between the two Mayor’s Courts. The
Company’s Mayor Court evolved its own procedure and dispensed justice in accordance
with the rules of common sense, equity and good conscience. It avoided the intricate
procedural technicalities. But the Charter of 1726 which introduced the British laws into
India brought all the legal technicalities of the British Courts of law. Thus the entire gamut
of British laws and its procedure were foisted on the Courts established under the Charter
of 1726.

(8) The Charter of 1726, in a way, did away with the concept of separation between the
executive and the judiciary in criminal matters. The Governor-in-Council acted as the
criminal court while the Mayor’s Courts handled only the civil matters and testamentary
and probate of wills cases. On the other hand, the Mayor’s Court at Madras was invested
with power to handle all civil and criminal matters and appeals from its decisions went to
the Admiralty Court rather than the Governor-in-Council.

The Charter of 1726 also constituted a Mayor’s Court for each of the presidency towns consisting
of a Mayor and nine Aldermen. Three of them i.e., the Mayor or senior Alderman together
with two other Aldermen were required to be present to form the quorum of the Court. The
Mayor’s Courts were declared to be present to fan the quorum of the Court. The Mayor’s
Courts were declared to be Courts of record and were authorized to try, hear and determine
all civil actions and pleas between party and party. The Court was also granted testamentary
jurisdiction id power to issue letters of administration to the legal heir of the deceased person.
It was authorized to exercise its jurisdiction over all persons living in the presidency own and
working in the Company’s subordinate factories.
Appeals from decisions of Mayor’s Court were filed in the Court of Governor and Council. A
second appeal in cases involving 1000 pagodas or more could be made to king-in-council in
 England. The court of Governor and Council also decided criminal cases.

Mayor’s Courts under the Charter of 1687 and 1726:

Comparison— Apart from the apparent similarity of names there was a vast difference between the
two Charters. The main differences may be enumerated as under:

(1) The Charter of 1687 applied to Madras only while the Charter of 1726 applied to all the
three Presidencies.
(2) The Mayor’s Court established under the Charter of 1726 had the jurisdiction in Civil
matters only in addition to its testamentary and probate jurisdiction, while the court under
the Charter of 1687 had the jurisdiction in criminal matters also.

(3) Appeals against the judgments of the Mayor’s Court under the Charter of 1687 went to the
Court of Admiralty while from the Mayor’s Court under the Charter of 1726, to the King-
in-Council.

(4) The Mayor’s Court of 1687 was a Court of the Company while the court established under
the Charter of 1726 was the Court of the Crown.

(5) The Mayor’s Court under the Charter of 1687 was better in one respect that it had a
lawyer-member called Recorder while in the Court under Charter of 1726 there was no
provision for any lawyer-member.

(6) In procedural matters, the court under the Charter of 1726 had to observe the technicalities
of the courts in England while the Court under Charter of 1687 was guided by its own
procedure of convenience.

(7) In the Court under Charter of 1687 there was good representation of Indians while
under the Charter of 1726 in spite of the provision for two Indian members none was ever
appointed in practice.

(8) Under the Charter of 1726 the criminal jurisdiction was completely assigned to the
executive, i.e., the Governor and Council, while under the earlier Charter it belonged to the
Mayor’s Court and the Admiralty Court.
The Regulating Act, 1773
With the passing of this Act, a type of direct parliamentary control over the Court of
Directors of the Company was established. But, this control was very weak. The Directors
were required to submit copies of the correspondence between the Company and the
Governor-General-in-Council regarding revenue matters and civil and military matters. The
Act also established the supremacy of the Bengal Presidency over those of Bombay and
Madras. The Bengal Presidency was authorized to deal exclusively with matters of war and
peace. The Act also established a Supreme Court at Calcutta which, for the first time, enjoyed
the power of judicial control over the administration. This was the first court during the
British period to be presided over by trained lawyers. But the principle of judicial control led
to conflict between the judiciary control led to conflict between the judiciary and the
executive. The Act of Settlement of 1781 removed this judicial control.

The Regulating Act had also empowered the Governor-General-in-Council to make

regulations. This Act and the subsequent Act of 1781 regularized the procedure for the
framing of those regulations. In course of time, the measures proved to be unsatisfactory.
There were a number of reports of several misdeeds of the Company’s Government in India.
The liberal opinion in England wanted greater parliamentary control of the Company’s
administration. But the attempt of the Liberal Cabinet to introduce far-reaching changes was
defeated by the House of Commons. Nevertheless, Pitt the younger who formed the next
Cabinet was able to introduce certain changes in the administration of India.

Supreme Court, 1774

 The regulating act of 1773 established a supreme court at Fort William, Calcutta. This
Supreme Court consisted one Chief Justice and three other regular
judges or Puisne Judges.

 Sir Elijah Imphey was the first Chief Justice of this Supreme Court.

 The Supreme Court was the supreme judiciary over all British subjects including the
provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.

 This was the starting point of Modern Constitutional History of India, under the
British.
Please note that this was though a Supreme Court, but still it was not above the
Company. The act of 1773 was obscure with regard to the relation of the Supreme Court
with the Government of Bengal. The Supreme Court subjected the company to the control
of British Government. Later an amendment in this act was made (The amending act of
1881), in which the actions of the public servants in the company in their official capacity
were exempted from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was also
made to consider and respect the religious and social customs of the Indians.

 Appeals could be taken from the provincial courts to the Governor-General-in-

Council and that was the final court of appeal.

Pitt’s India Act

The most important change brought by Pitt’s India Act was to curtail the powers of the Court
of Directors of the Company over political affairs. The Act which received Royal assent in
1784 allowed the Court of Directors manage the commercial affairs of the Company as they
liked. With regard to political affairs of the Company, the Board of Control was appointed.
The Board was presided over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and four Privy Councilors
and a Secretary were also its members. This Board exercised the power of superintendence,
direction and control of all the affairs in relation of the civil and military Government of the
British Territorial possessions in the East Indies. Expecting the power of appointment of the
officers of the Company, the Court of the Proprietors lost all its political powers. The
Company also professed the policy of non-intervention in the affairs of Indian rulers.

Notwithstanding the professed policy of non-intervention, there was vast territorial

acquisition by the Company’s Government in India. This territorial expansion necessitated
greater parliamentary control. Such Parliamentary control was sought to be introduced by
several Acts known as Charter Acts.

Act of Settlement, 1781

The Act of Settlement was an Amending Act of 1781, which was passed by British
Parliament on 5th July 1781 to remove the defects of the Regulating Act 1773. It is also
known as Declaratory Act, 1781.

The Act had the following features :

 Change in the powers of the Supreme Court

The servants of the company which earlier came within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
were now exempted from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

By the enactment of this Act, the court’s geographical jurisdiction became limited to only
Calcutta.

 Non-interference in Revenue matters

The court now had no jurisdiction in the revenue matters concerning revenue, or any act was
done in the collection thereof, the government now became independent of the control of the
court in the matter of revenue.

 The Shift of Appellate Jurisdiction from Court to the Governor-General and

Council

The Appellate jurisdiction shifted in the hands of the Governor-General and Council. Now,
the appeals went from Provincial Courts to the Governor-General in council.

 The Assertion on the application of the personal laws

This act asserted that Mohammedan law should be applied on the Mohammedan cases and
similarly, the Hindu law must be applied to Hindu cases.

Trial of Raja Nand Kumar – the judicial murder. (1775).

The trial of Raja Nand Kumar is an example of how arbitrary and capricious the justice of
administration was in British India. This trial is popularly known as the judicial murder of
Raja Nand Kumar. This is a historically significant trial because later on this trial became a
major ground for the impeachment of Governor General Warren Hastings and Chief Justice
Impey of the Supreme Court of Calcutta, by the House of Commons, after they returned to
England.

Events prior to the commencement of trial

Raja Nand Kumar, who was once Governor of Hugli under Nawab Siraj-Ud-Daulah in 1756
and later due to his loyalty to the English Company in 1757 was nicknamed “Black Colonel
“during Clive’s period, brought several charges of bribery and corruption against Governor-
General Warren Hastings, in 1775. Raja Nand Kumar gave a letter of complaint against
Warren Hastings, to Francis, a member of the council dated 11th March 1775. This letter was
presented before the Council by Francis, the same day, at its meetings. The letter of
complaint stated that in 1772 Warren Hastings when he was Governor, accepted from him as
a bribe of Rs.1,04,105/- for appointing Gurudas as Diwan and from Munni Begam
Rs.2,50,000/- for appointing her guardian of the infant Nawab Mubarak-Ud-Daulah. The
Council received another letter from Nand Kumar dated 13th March 1775 through which he
offered to produce vouchers supporting his charges of bribery against Warren Hastings. In the
council meeting, a motion by Monson was moved to ask Nand Kumar to appear before it.
This motion was opposed by Warren Hastings who was presiding at the meeting.
Notwithstanding Hasting’s opposition, the Monson’s motion was carried by a majority of
votes in the Council. This irked Hasting and he dissolved the meeting of the Council and left
the seat. The Council elected Clavering to occupy the presiding seat at the meeting. Raja
Nand Kumar, after appearing before the Council, produced a letter in Persian, which was
written by Munni Begum to him. The Council, while examining Raja Nand Kumar, asked
him that, “Was he ever approached by Warren Hasting or his men for the letter of Munni
Begum?” In response to this question, Raja Nand Kumar said that Warren Hasting’s Baniya
Kanta Babu had come to him, nearly four months ago to collect this letter, but the original
letter was not provided to him. The Council also called Kanta Babu, but he avoided appearing
at the instance of Warren Hastings. The Council found the charges of Raja Nand Kumar,
against Warren Hastings to be true and held that he received a sum of Rs.3, 54,105/- as a
bribe and therefore the Council by a resolution directed Warren Hastings to pay the same
amount into the Company’s treasury.

Facts of the Case in the trial of Raja Nand Kumar.

Raja Nand Kumar was arrested, a few months later, with Fawkes and Radhacharan, for
conspiracy at the instance of the Governor General and Barnwell. Warren Hastings and his
favorite Council member Barewell declared their intention before the judges of the Supreme
Court, to prosecute Raja Nand Kumar, the Fawkes, and Radhacharan for conspiracy. The trial
of Raja Nand Kumar, for conspiracy, continued with another trial of his for forgery. The
Supreme Court delivered its judgment in July 1775, in the conspiracy case. Fawke was fined,
but the judgment was reserved against Nand Kumar on account of the forgery case. The
Governor-General Warren Hastings felt that it would be difficult to involve Nand Kumar
directly in the conspiracy case and therefore he implicated Nand Kumar in another case of
forgery, for which the punishment was death as per the provisions of the English Act of 1729.
The charge of forgery against Nand Kumar, was with respect to a bond or deed claimed as an
acknowledgment of debt from Bulaki Das, the banker, which it is said, was executed by him
in 1765. Mohan Prasad brought a charge of forgery on 6th May 1775 before the justices of
the peace for the town of Calcutta. Le Maistre and Hyde acted as Magistrates, they heard the
case and scrutinized the evidence for the prosecution till late in the night. The Magistrates, in
the capacity of the justices of the peace, being satisfied with the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, ordered the Sherrif and keeper of His Majesty’s prison at Calcutta to keep Nand
Kumar in safe custody until he would be released as per law. Mohan Prasad gave a bond to
prosecute Nand Kumar in the Supreme Court dated 7th May 1775, and on this basis, his trial
commenced before the Chief Justice and three other puisne judges of the Supreme Court on
8th May 1775.

The trial of Nand Kumar began on 8th June and continued for eight days without any
postponement. The advocate of Nand Kumar, first of all, advanced a plea as to the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the matter, which was rejected by the Court. The Court
sat every day from 8 a.m. and witnesses were scrutinized till late at night. One of the most
peculiar features of this trial was that the judges cross-examined the defense witnesses in
minute detail on the plea that the King’s Counsel was incapable of doing it efficiently. It
raised a serious question mark on the integrity and the impartiality of judges. The trial lasted
till the midnight of 15th June 1775. The Chief Justice Impey summed up the whole case on
the morning of 16th June. The judges gave the unanimous verdict of “guilty,” and the jury
also declared their verdict of “guilty.” The Chief Justice after rejecting all pleas to defend
Raja Nand Kumar, sentenced him to death under an Act of the British Parliament which was
passed in 1729. Every possible attempt to save Raja Nand Kumar was made but to no avail.
The advocate of Raja Nand Kumar decided to take an appeal to the King-in-Council and
petitioned the Court to stay the implementation of the decision so long as the Council’s
decision was not known. The Court rejected the petition. The efforts to seek the assistance of
the members of the Council also proved in vain. The letter of recommendation by the Nawab
to the Council, to suspend the sentence until the pleasure of His Majesty was known, also
proved to be futile, since the Supreme Court took no action upon it after being forwarded by
the Council. Raja Nand Kumar was thus hanged on 5th August 1775 at 8:00 a.m. at Cooly
Bazar near Fort William.

Two Important question raised in the trial

In this trial, two very important questions emerged. The first, whether the Supreme Court had
jurisdiction in this matter? Second, whether the English Act of 1729, which made forgery a
capital offense, was extended to India? The prime objection regarding the Supreme Court’s
jurisdiction was that before the establishment of Supreme Court in Calcutta, the Indians in
Bengal were tried by local Faujdari Adalats. In this case, the offense was committed before
the establishment of the Supreme Court, and therefore it had no jurisdiction to decide the
case. On the second issue of applicability of the Act of 1729 to India, there was a divided
opinion even amongst the judges, but ultimately the majority views including that of the
Chief Justice Impey prevailed.

Thus the decision of the Supreme Court, in this case, created a huge controversy and depicted
the arbitrary state of the administration of justice in India. This decision was widely criticized
and popularly referred to as judicial murder of Raja Nand Kumar.

Kamaluddin Case (1775)

Facts and Decisions

This case represents the first open difference of opinion between the court and the
government over the question of the Court’s control of Diwani functions.

Background

Kamaluddin was an ostensible holder of a salt farm at Hijili, on behalf of kanta babu, who
was the real farmer. In 1775 Kamaluddin was committed on the ground of arrears of revenue
due from him the claim of which he disputed.

On this basis revenue council at Calcutta issued a writ for kamaluddin’s committal without
bail.

Kamaluddin obtained habeas corpus from the Supreme Court, which set him free.

The judges further stated that kamaluddin should not be imprisoned again until his under-
renter had been called upon to pay the arrears and had proved to insolvent.

Conflicts

The members of the council stated that the supreme court cannot deal with the cases of
revenue as was being highlighted in the regulating act of 1773 .

The council therefore ordered the provincial council to re-arrest kamaluddin and pay no
attention to the Supreme Court order. But the governor-general warren hasting refused to
support the council members.
The case of kamaluddin was an eye opener disclosing defective provisions of the regulating
act due to which not only the supreme court and the supreme council came into the dispute
but also the gulf between the governor-general warren hastings and three members of the
council ,who constituted the majority, gradually became wider and wider.

Patna Case

This case revealed the weakness and defects existing in the methods of administering justice
by the company’s judicial system in the Moffusil.

Issues Involved

About the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the right of the Supreme Court to try actions
against the judicial officers of the company for an act done in their official capacity.

Whether the provincial Diwani Adalats which consisted of the members of the provincial
council legally constituted the courts of justice.

The judgment of the Supreme Court not only provoked the members of the council but also
create panic among the local population of Calcutta.

Facts

Shahabaz beg khan, an afghan military adventurer came to India from Kabul. He settled at
Patna, married nadirah begum and earned a large amount of money.

When he died there was a dispute of property between his wife and his nephew Bahadur beg.

Bahadur beg took the case to the provincial council at Patna praying that the Muslim law
officers of the council mufti and qazi may be directed to ascertain the petitioner’s right over
the property of the deceased.

The provincial council instead of deciding the case passed it over to the Muslim law officers .

The Muslim law officers carried out the directions of the provincial council very harshly
while dealing with the widow. The widow being afraid fled from her house with some of the
title deeds and her female slaves and took shelter in a dargah.

The Muslims law officers divided the property into four parts .three parts were given to the
nephew and the fourth part was given to the widow. The widow declined to accept the
judgment and to hand over her title deeds. She also refused to return to the family from
dirgah.
After tolerating harassment for few months the widow appealed to the sadar diwani adalat
against the decision of the provincial council, but the former took no notice of her appeal.

The widow filed the suit in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered the arrest and
posed a fine on nephew, qazi and mufti against whom the widow filed a petition. Then
Begum filed a case in the Supreme Court against the Bahadur Beg , kazi and muftis for the
assault, battery, false imprisonment , breaking and entering her house and taking away her
property and claimed damages amounting to Rs.6 lakh.

Then Supreme Court issued the bailable arrest warrant against the Bahadur Beg, kazis and
muftis.

The court awarded damages of Rs.3 lakh to the Begum for personal injuries. As defendants
failed to pay the damages they were sent to the Jail.

Important Points raised before the Supreme Court

In what sense Bahadur beg and native law officers were subject to the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court.

Second point was related to the liability of the judicial officers who acted under the delegated
authority of the provincial council.

As far as first case is concerned ,the charter act of 1774 was not clear in laying down the
jurisdiction of the supreme court.it was also not provided that the court shall have jurisdiction
over the zamindars and over any person by virtue of his interest in or authority over lands or
rent within Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.

Both the parties were Muslims to which the Muslim law of inheritance should be applied.

There was no written agreement between the parties to submit the case to the Supreme Court.

As far as second issue is concerned the provincial council has no right to delegate to its law
officers the hearing of the suit and to give decision upon the basis of a mere report.

Effects of this Case

The fact of the case and decision of the Supreme Court exposed the weakness of the
company’s administrative machinery in India.

It pointed out the deteriorating state of the administration of justice in the country.
It also proved that the moffusil courts under the company’s control failed to impart justice to
the Indians.

Another important reaction of the case was that the local zamindars refused to accept the
work of revenue collection for the company. They became afraid of the jurisdiction of the
supreme court.

The case was directly responsible for many provisions of the act of settlement which was
passed in 1781 a.d so as to remove the evils of the Regulating act.

The other famous case is Cossijurah case – In this case Supreme Court forces came against
the Forces of government regarding court case. The case involves the contempt proceedings
against the Governor General and council who sent forces to stop the Supreme Court forces.
This case is landmark case as Supreme Court and Executive, government came to fight with
each other.

The Cossijurah Case (1779-1780 A.D)

Facts

The conflict between the Supreme Court and the supreme council reached its zenith during
this case. While the Supreme Court ordered the sheriff to carry out its orders, the supreme
council ordered its troops to defend the implementation of its orders.

The Supreme Court also claimed its jurisdiction over all the native population which was
strongly opposed by the council.

Raja sundernarain was the zamindar of cossijurah and was under a heavy debt to kashinath
babu. Though the latter tried to extract the money through the board of revenue, his efforts
proved in vain. He therefore filed a case in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issued a writ of capias for the arrest of the raja.

The council came to know of the developments. After seeking legal advice from the advocate
general, the council issued a notification informing all the landholders that they need not pay
any attention to the process of the supreme court, unless they were either the servants of the
company or had accepted the court’s jurisdiction by their own consent.
The raja was specially informed about the council and therefore his people drove away the
sheriff of the Supreme Court when that official came with the writ to arrest the raja of
cossijurah.

Conflicts

The supreme court issued another writ to seize the raja‘s property in order to compel his
appearance before the supreme court.

This time sheriff with a force of 60-70 men marched to cossijurah. They imprisoned the raja.

In the meantime the governor-general ordered colonel ahmuty, to detach a sufficient force to
intercept and arrest the sheriff with his party and release the raja from arrest. This was done
efficiently.

Kashinath babu brought an action of trespass against the governor-general and the members
of the council individually. The latter became annoyed and declared that persons in Bengal,
out of Calcutta, need not submit to the court and assured that the council would safeguard
their interests even by the use of armed of the armed forces.

The Supreme Court issued writs against all members of the council except governor- general
and. But the army officials refused to allow the supreme court officials to serve the writ to the
members of the council.

The judges became furious and took the action against the attorney general of the company.
He was committed to the prison and no bail was accepted.

The councilors conveyed to the judges that if they were held accountable to the Supreme
Court on the suit of an Indian, the respect for the government in the minds of the Indians
would decrease and the administration would be weakened.

The councilors very strongly stuck to their stand and refused to submit to the authority of the
Supreme Court.

At this critical stage the plaintiff withdrew the case against the Governor General, members
of the council and the raja.

Observations

That whether the zamindars were subjected to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Who was the competent authority to decide the issue?

As far as the first question is concerned, it is in the political interest of the company to keep
the zamindars ignorant of their rights and status. There are many instances to prove that the
zamindars and the hereditary rajas and ranis were at times were harassed by the company’s
official’s.

Also the judges of the Supreme Court could not get an opportunity to enquire in to the status
of the zamindars.

Regarding the next question the judges of the Supreme Court held that the court was the
competent authority to determine the legal status of the zamindars and the council had no
such power.

Reforms by Warren Hastings

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

Warren Hastings hence proceeded to make major changes in the administration of justice.
Warren Hastings realized the very fact that an impartial and regular administration of justice
was extremely essential for creating conditions for a better collection of land revenue. Thus
changes were made in regard to civil and criminal justice while various other provisions were
also introduced. Moreover one of the major development which took place was that the three
presidencies—Bengal, Bombay, and Madras— were divided into a number of districts for the
betterment of administration.

Administration of Justice: First Stage 1772

The Judicial Plan of 1772 as been formulated by Warren Hasting consisted of 37 regulations
dealing with civil and criminal laws. It was the first Anglo-Indian Code, which worked out on
the basis of experience and common observations. The plan aimed at correcting the defects
without destroying the traditions of the local systems. Thus the diwani area of Bengal, Bihar,
and Orissa was divided into several districts, each with an English collector as its head. This
‘district’ was the main administrative unit in the plan. The main features of Judicial Plan of
1772 may be explained under the following headings:

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

Criminal Justice: A Mofussil Faujdari (or Nizamat) Adalat was established in each district
for the trial of crimes and misdemeanors. This court was assisted by a Kazi or Mufti and two
Maulvies who expounded the law, while the Collector had a general supervision over the
court. The court had full power to decide and punish all criminal cases though they were not
empowered to award death sentence. In such cases, the court’s decision was submitted to
Sadar Nizamat Adalat for confirmation and finally to the Nawab for his sentence.

Sadar Nizamat Adalat, established at Calcutta, was presided by an Indian judge known as
Daroga-i-Adalat who was to be assisted by the chief Kazi, chief Mufti and three Maulvies to
hear the appeals from the Faujdari Adalat.

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

The plan of 1772 was in many respects a boon to the people at that time. The change in
judicial system brought back the confidence of the people in the government and the justice.
However, a grave defect in the plan was that the Collector acted as the administrator; the
Judge and the Magistrate in the district i.e. there was over-centralization of powers in a single
official.
Miscellaneous Provisions: A few provisions were made to promote pure and impartial
justice. All cases were to be heard in open court. All adalats were to maintain proper registers
and records. District adalats were to transmit abstracts of their records to Sadar Adalats. This
precaution was necessary so as to discourage judicial officers from misusing their power. To
make justice inexpensive, the old vexatious impositions on administration of justice were
abolished and moderate fees were prescribed for trial of civil cases which was bound to give
relief to people. To supplement the work of the courts, the method of arbitration was also
provided for.

Despite the merits of Judicial Plan of 1772, it had certain demerits which are stated as
follows:

One of the major defects of the Plan was that there was over-centralization of powers in a
single official, namely, the Collector. He was overburdened with heavy work as he was
singularly required to shoulder the responsibility as an administrator, revenue collector, civil
judge and a magistrate in his District.
The Judicial Plan had a limited application only in the territory of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.
It was based on an erroneous assumption of Hastings that Indian population consisted of only
the Hindus and Muslims. There were other communities and races for which there was no
provision made in the Judicial Plan. Though the functioning of Adalats was under the
supervision and control of the Sadar Adalat at Calcutta, but in absence of adequate means of
communications it was almost impossible for the government at Calcutta to keep a constant
watch on the working of the Collectors of the districts. In absence of an effective control, the
Collectors indulged in private trading and misused their position and power for personal
gains.
The judges of the courts being Englishmen, they did not have knowledge of personal laws
of Hindus and Muslims. Though native laws officers were appointed to assist the English
judges, but they could easily misguide the judges by deliberately misinterpreting the
provisions of the Quran and Shastras.
The functions of revenue collection and civil administration were combined in a single
official, the Collector. Therefore there was no separation between revenue collection and civil
administration. Obviously, the Collector paid more attention to revenue collection than the
civil administration.
Administration of Justice: Second Stage 1774
The abolition of the institution of Collector in 1773 on the advice of the Court of Directors of
the Company in England up-set the judicial arrangement of 1772 and a new Plan became an
urgent need of the time. Warren Hastings prepared new Plan on November 23, 1773 which
was implemented in January 1774. The various changes made in regard to revenue, civil
justice, criminal reforms are as follows:

Revenue: Collectors were re-called from the districts and in their place an Indian officer,
called Diwan or Amil, was appointed. He was to act as a judge of the Mofussil Diwani Adalat
and collected the land revenue also. The entire Mofussil area in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa was
divided into six divisions with the Headquarters as Calcutta, Burdwan, Murshidabad,
Dinajpore, Dacca and Patna. Each division had a Provincial Council consisting of a Chief and
four senior servants of the Company. The Councils and the Committee were to supervise the
collection of revenue in their Divisions.

Civil Justice: The provisions relating to appeals in civil cases were also considerably
liberalised under the plan of 1774. Now all cases decided by the Mofussil Diwani Adalats
were appealable to the Provincial Council irrespective of the value of the subject matter of
the suit. There was also a provision for second appeal to the Sadar Diwani Adalat in cases
exceeding the value of Rs. 1000/-
Criminal Reforms: The Officers of the Faujdari Adalats were forbidden to hold farms or
other offices in the Mofussil and were obliged to reside in their districts on pain of forfeiting
their employments. Complaints against them were to be lodged with the Governor-General
who would refer them to the Sadar Nizamat Adalat for inquiry and determination.

Although the new system was an improvement over the earlier one, the change did not give
good results for long. The Council took the place of the Collector in creating the difficulties
and monopolizing the trade within its jurisdiction. Warren Hastings detected this defect very
soon but he could not make any change till 1780 when entirely a new modified system was
established.

The judicial plan of 1774 also did not prove to be effective for the implementation of reforms
introduced by Warren Hastings and in the year 1780, he again devised another plan to
overcome the difficulties faced in the implementation and execution of the reforms of 1774.

Judicial Plan of 1780

Warren Hastings knew that the judicial plan of 1774 was not perfect, and when Warren
Hastings again got the chance, he made changes to the judicial plan of 1774. On April 11,
1780 new plan was introduced.

As per the plan of 1780 judicial and executive functions were separated. Adalats – Function
to do civil justice, no revenue work

Provincial Council - No judicial work, only revenue related work, collection and revenue
cases.

But with this plan the problem was that, the area was vast and adalats were few to administer
those large areas, because of this, cases were more, time was limited with the judges and thus
arrears piled up in every adalat.

2nd problem was that witnesses had to travel lot to reach the adalats For eg. There was only
one Adalat in the whole of Bihar.

Because of this people thought it better not to file the cases in courts, as filing cases in court
meant delayed justice, physical harassment, waste of time and money.

As per the judicial plan cases up to Rs.100 were referred to the person who stayed near the
place of litigant ,but before this it was compulsory to file the case in the Adalat, and 2nd
problem was that the person who worked as judges has to work as a honorary judge and did
not get any salary . The Zamindar or public officer acted as an honorary judge and they
charged money for this and also zamindar got the chance to do corruption as he became the
honorary judge.

On 29th September 1780 Warren Hastings proposed in the Council that chief justice Sir
Elijah Impey be requested to accept the charge of the office of the Sadar Diwani Adalat.

Impey accepted this offer. He remained in Sadar Adalat for a year but he introduced a lot of
reforms in sadar adalat. Impey drafted many regulations to reform the adalats.

On November 3, 1780 first reform, regulation was passed to regulate the procedure of the
diwani adalats.

As per this rule , the Mofussil judge had to decide the facts , he was allowed to take the help
of Hindu Pundits or Muslim Mulla if it was necessary to understand the cause or case. Impey
compiled a civil procedure code for the guidance of the Sadar Adalat and mofussil diwani
adalats. It was the first code of civil procedure to be prepared in India .
It was promulgated by the Council on July 5, 1781 in the form of a Regulation. It was the
digest of the civil rules. The code consolidated at one place a detailed civil procedure. The
code contained 95 clauses and with it all the previous regulations relating to civil procedure
were repealed. The code of 1781 clearly defined the functions, powers and jurisdiction of
Sadar Diwani Adalat. This code was translated in Persian and Bengali language that time.

In India, Impey was doing a great job, but in England people were not happy with Impey
because of following reasons –

Impey was appointed as the Supreme Court judge to monitor the Company affairs in India.
But in India Impey started to work as a company servant when he accepted office as the
Judge of Sadar Adalat. Accepting this violated the Regulation act.

Because of other job, they believed that Impey would not do the justice with the job of
Supreme Court.

Because of all above reasons , on 3rd May 1782 in England House of Commons adopted a
resolution requesting the crown, king , to recall Impey to answer the charge of having
accepted an office and violating the Regulating act.

After this Impey left India on 3rd December 1782.

Reforms by Lord Cornwallis

Lord Cornwallis succeeded Warren Hastings as the Governor General of India. He put
forward certain conditions before The Crown before accepting the post of Governor-General.
They were:

 The office of Governor General and the commander-in-chief would be united under
one person i.e. the Governor General.

 The Governor General-in-council will have veto over the council on all decisions
made concerning administration and military.

 His aims as Governor General were to:

 Uproot corruption from the present judiciary and administration system.

 Tackle the problem of land revenue.

 Develop a proper system of administration of justice.

Lord Cornwallis was Governor General from the year 1786 to 1793 and his most noted work
was in the field of criminal judicature. He introduced changes in the judicial system in three
years – 1787, 1790 and 1793. These were known as Judicial Plan of 1787, 1790 and 1793
respectively.

Judicial Plan of 1787

1. Reorganisation of districts

The number of districts in Calcutta were reduced from 36 to 23.

2. Appointment of collector

A collector was appointed in each district. He was an Englishman. Collector was assigned
with two tasks – to collect revenue and to decide cases arising out of revenue matter.

He also presided over the mofussil diwani adalat (district level civil court) as a judge. In
mofussil diwani adalat, he would decide civil cases and cases of zamindars. Appeals from the
mofussil diwani adalat lay to the Sadr Diwani Adalat when the matters exceeded Rs.1000/-.
The Sadr Diwani Adalat was presided was the Governor General.

He also presided over the Magistrate’s Court as a Magistrate, where he was empowered to try
and punish cases of petty crimes and offence upto Rs. 200. Offences having value of more
than Rs.200 would be sent to the Sadr Nizamat Adalat by the Magistrate.

3. Establishment of Mal Adalats

 Mal Adalats were revenue courts in each district which exclusively dealt with revenue
matters.

 This court was presided by the Collector who decided cases related to revenue as he
was an in charge of revenue matters.

 Appeal from the Mal adalat lay to the Board of Revenue in Calcutta and then to the
Governor General-in-council.

4. Establishment of Registrar Courts

An assistant officer of the collector was appointed who was known as the Registrar. He was
appointed in each district who presided over the Registrar’s court which decided civil cases
upto the value of Rs.200/-
But the decree passed by the Registrar was not final until it was signed by the Mofussil
Diwani Adalat i.e. the Collector.

Judicial Plan of 1790

1. Reorganisation districts into divisions

The districts were divided into four divisions – Murshidabad, Calcutta, Dacca, and Patna.

2. Moffusil Faujdari Courts were abolished

Mofussil Faujdari Courts were the district level criminal courts. They were abolished and
replaced with Court of Circuits.

3. Establishment of Court of Circuits

A court of Circuit was established at each of the four divisions. It was presided by 2 servants
of the company and they were assisted by Muslim law officers – Qazi and muftis. It was not a
stationary court. Instead it was a moving court which moved from district to district in their
respective division to try criminal cases. They visited each district of their division twice
annually.

4. Increase in Salaries

The salaries of all Judges of all court were fixed and increased to control corruption that was
prevalent in the current system of justice.

5. Collector to make a report of the working of courts

Collector to make a report of the working of courts he was incharge of i.e. the Magistrate,
Mal Adalat and Mofussil Diwani Adalat; and send it to the British Parliament of England bi-
annually and annually.

6. The Post of Nawab was abolished

The post of Nawab, who used to preside over Sadr Nizamat Adalat was abolished as he did
not carry out criminal justice properly and it was now presided by the Governor General-in-
council instead.

7. Court Fees
Court fees was introduced to reduce the burden on courts. Court fees was only charged for
pleaders of the court and for calling the witnesses of the case.

8. Questionnaire sent to the Magistrates

A questionnaire was sent to the magistrates asking for their opinions on the prevailing
criminal judicial system.

Defects of the Judicial Plan of 1790

The magistrates’ opinions in the questionnaire sent to them revealed the evils of the criminal
justice system. This made Cornwallis realize that certain vital changes were required in the
system of criminal justice.

Two important sources of these evils were-(i) defects in the constitution of the criminal courts
(ii) the gross defects in the Muslim law of Crimes.

Cornwallis resolved to abolish the authority of Nawab over the criminal judicature and to
transfer the administration of criminal justice from Muslim Law officers to the Company’s
legal servants.

Court of Circuits were moving courts which were overburdened with cases, which caused
them delay in moving from one district to another and could not visit some districts twice
annually due to the delay.

There was a lot of collective power of administration and judiciary vested with the collector
which made him abuse his power.

Judicial Plan of 1793

1. Separation of Executive and the Judiciary

The powers vested in the collector were administrative and judicial as he was also in charge
of collection of revenue and for deciding cases arising out of revenue matter. Now, the
collector was only responsible for the collection of revenue.

2. Mal Adalats were abolished

Revenue courts which exclusively tried cases arising out of revenue matters and presided by
the Collector as Judge, was now abolished.
All powers and pending suits of the Revenue courts were now transferred to Mofussil Diwani
Adalats and thus not tried by the collector.

3. Executive subjected judicial control

The Governor General and his council were now subject to judicial control. Any wrong acts
committed by them while carrying out their functions and outside of it could be heard or tried
and punished by the Diwani Adalats. Suits against the Government by private individuals
could be brought forward and were tried by the Diwani Courts.

4. Indian natives had to sign a bond with the British Subjects agreeing to go to
court

British could recover claims from Indian natives and vice versa by signing a bond with each
other agreeing to go to court.

5. Establishment of Provincial Courts of Appeal at the four divisions

Earlier the appeal from the Mofussil Diwani Adalats lay to the Sadr Diwani Adalat situated at
Calcutta. But this process for time consuming and expensive so provincial courts of appeal
were established at each division i.e. Patna, Calcutta Murshidabad and Dacca. Appeals from
the Mofussil Adalat now lay to the provincial court of appeal which were to be heard within
three months of filing them. These courts were presided by three covenant English servants
of the company. Quorum was of two servants. It was an open court and could try revenue,
civil and criminal cases. They could also try cases referred to them by the Sadr Diwani
Adalats.

Cases valued more than Rs. 5000 were referred to the King-in-council.

6. Native Officers given important posts

Native officers were appointed by the Governor General-in-council.Native officers were

made Munsiffs of the Munsiff courts at district level. This court could try cases upto Rs.50.
Zamindars, Tehsildars, etc appointed as Munsiffs.

Personal Laws of Hindus and Muslims were applicable in cases relating to marriage,
inheritance, caste, religious usages and institutions. These personal laws were interpreted by
the native officers who were appointed to assist the court to expound the personal law

7. Sadr Diwani Adalat

It was highest court of appeal in India. It was presided over by the Governor General and the
Council who were the Judges of the Sadr Diwani Adalat. Their function was to supervise the
lower courts and to hear appeals from the provincial courts of appeal when the sum of the
matter of the case was more than Rs.1000.

Further an appeal from the Sadr Diwani Adalat lay to the King-in-council, when the sum of
the matter of the case was more than Rs.5000.

8. Reforms in criminal judicature

The court of circuit was merged with the provincial court of appeal. The power of the
collector as a magistrate was taken away and was vested in the judges of the diwani adalats
instead.

9. Uniform pattern of Regulations

Until now, any new regulation that was issued did not follow an uniform pattern. This was
changed by making it a rule that any new regulation that would be made would have a title to
explain the nature of the subject matter and contain a preamble which would state the purpose
for enacting the regulation.

10. Reforms in Muslim Personal Law

The Sadr Nizamat Adalat was directed to to follow the muslim personal law to try and punish
criminal cases, but with some modifications. The relatives of murder victims did not have a
provision to pardon the murderer. The cruel and inhuman punishments such as cutting off
limbs of the offender were replaced with punishment of imprisonment and hard labour for 14
years.

11. Court Fees abolished

Court fees which was imposed in the judicial plan of 1787 was abolished. The court fee was
abolished so that the people could easily reach to the court for securing justice.

12. Legal Profession recognised for the first time in India

The legal profession was recognised in India for the first time. The pleaders of the case had to
have prior legal knowledge to be eligible to be a pleader of the court.

Defects of the judicial plan of 1790

The provisions of multiple levels of appeals made the judicial machinery complicated and
slow moving. Thus, large number of cases remained pending in the courts for long period.

The Indians were totally excluded from the judiciary except at very low level of munsif.
Cornwallis was of a belief that the Indians were unworthy of holding any position of
responsibility because of their character. This distrust shown towards the Indians generated
the dissatisfaction among the native people as well as made the system less efficient as the
English servants did not know and understand the customs, usages, etc. of the people;
therefore Europeans could not understand nor provide solutions the problems of the natives.

Cornwallis did everything on procedural side but he could not reform the substantive part of
law mainly the criminal law which was based on Muslim law and had many defects.