REGULATING ACT 1773

First major intervention of the British Parliament in the Indian affairs of the Company
1. Changed the structure of the Company in England & Company government in India
2. Brought the Bombay and Madras Presidencies under the control of the GG of Bengal,
subjected all Company territories to one supreme Council in India
3. English Ministries were to supervise the Company

1. Appointed a GG and 4 Councillors for the govt of the Presidency of Fort William,
were to hold office for 5 years  Supreme Authority of India.
2. Power extended to ordering, management and governance of all territorial
acquisitions and revenues of Calcutta, Bengal, Bihar, Orissa
3. GGC required to furnish all info relating to the govt, commerce and interest of the
EIC
4. Govt of Presidencies of Madras, Bombay put under GGC- to the extent that
commencing hostilities, declaring war/ making treaties without prior consent and
approbation of GGC. Prior consent not required- imminent necessity or special orders
from the EIC had been received. Bombay and Madras Govts were required to transmit
all info relating to govt, revenues or interest of the Company in those presidencies.
5. GG and C were authorized to make and issue rules, ordinances and regulations for
good order and civil government
Power subjected to conditions-
These will not be valid or effective until registered in the SC1 and approved by it.
Must not be repugnant to the laws of England
Could be set aside by King on an application presented to SC within 60 days of
registration
GG and C were to transmit copies of all to the Sec of State in England; King could
disallow- period of 2 years, otherwise they will continue to be valid
6. Appeals against SC’s decision-
Civil cases- Appeals in cases valued for 1000 pagodas or more
Criminal cases- can only be filed through the SC
SC has absolute power to allow or refuse an appeal

1
Section 13 empowered the King to establish, by Charter, a SC at Bengal; was established by Charter of 1774
 7. Justices of Peace- the SC was a court of record, had the power to punish for contempt.
Justices of Peace were appointed throughout the 3 provinces, given same authority as
Judges of the King’s Bench in England. Could issue writs. Jurisdiction- Calcutta,
Bengal, Bihar, Orissa
8. Directors- Directors of the company were to be elected for a period of five years and
one-fourth of them used to retire every year. There was no procedure for re-election
available.

2 authorities created- Supreme Council and Supreme Court

Gave the first Constitution to the Company’s Govt in India

Defects:
1. Conflict between GG and C- Required that the decisions of the GGC will be made by
a majority vote, and the GG was not given power to override his Council.
2. Conflict between J and E - not clearly defined, but they shall not be liable before the
SC except for felony and treason suits. Ambiguity in other matters- SC entertained
matters against them & the GG C defied the SC’s authority. GG and C also took the
stand that the management of Diwani functions was free from the interference of the
SC.
3. Relationship between Company Courts and SC not clear - subordinate? Writs?
Appeals? SC began to act against judges of these courts if they committed illegalities
4. Jurisdiction of the SC not clearly defined- with respect to territory outside the
Presidency limits of Calcutta; as Justices of Peace, began to issue writs throughout the
province territories
5. Imminent necessity undefined
6. Undefined position of the Company
7. Vague terms and wide interpretations- several terms such as “British subjects”,
“subjects of Her Majesty”, etc. were not well-defined, and SC gave its own
interpretation to these terms, neither consistent nor satisfactory.
KAMALUDDIN (1775)-

K a farmer was committed to prison by the Revenue Authority at

Calcutta for non-payment of revenue arrears. But, he was released
by the Supreme Court, The Govt., (Supreme Council) criticised this
and declared that the court had no powers to deal with revenue
cases. Hence, the Govt,, was asserting its power. In a letter to the
Court of Directors, Chief Justice, Impey stated that' when arrests
were • made for non-payment of revenues, bail "was usually
granted and so the Supreme Court had a right to give the directives
to release on bail. The Court was protecting the subject from
oppression, It was compelling the officers to follow- the established
customs and usages in revenue collections.

RAJA NAND KUMAR (1775)-

The Raja Nand Kumar case, also referred to as the Maharaja Nandakumar Murder Case, was
a pivotal episode in the history of British colonial India during the late 18th century. At its
core, the case revolved around accusations of corruption against Warren Hastings, the
Governor-General of Bengal, and the subsequent legal proceedings against Raja Nand
Kumar, a prominent Indian nobleman who had levied those charges.

The origins of the case can be traced back to the strained relationship between Nand Kumar
and Hastings. Nand Kumar, a wealthy and influential figure in Bengal, accused Hastings of
corruption and maladministration. His allegations targeted Hastings' policies and decisions,
which he believed were detrimental to the interests of the local populace and conducive to
British exploitation.
In retaliation, Hastings accused Nand Kumar of forgery and fraud, specifically alleging that
Nand Kumar had fabricated documents to incriminate him. This accusation set the stage for a
legal showdown that would have far-reaching implications.

One of the central legal issues in the case was the question of jurisdiction. The trial of Nand
Kumar took place within the framework of British colonial justice, where British judges
presided over the proceedings. This raised concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the
trial, as it occurred within a colonial system that was inherently biased in favor of British
interests.

Furthermore, the case brought to the forefront the complexities of legal procedures and
evidence in a colonial context. The prosecution relied heavily on testimonies and documents
that purportedly incriminated Nand Kumar in the forgery scheme. However, there were
allegations of tampering with evidence and coercion of witnesses, casting doubt on the
integrity of the proceedings.

Moreover, the case highlighted the power dynamics at play in colonial India. Nand Kumar, as
an Indian nobleman, found himself pitted against the might of the British colonial
administration, represented by Hastings and his allies. This power asymmetry not only
influenced the legal proceedings but also underscored broader issues of colonial domination
and subjugation.

The trial itself was marked by controversy and irregularities. Nand Kumar's defense team
argued vehemently against the charges, questioning the credibility of the evidence presented
by the prosecution. They contended that the case against Nand Kumar was politically
motivated, aimed at silencing dissent and maintaining British hegemony.

Despite the defense's efforts, Nand Kumar was ultimately convicted of forgery and sentenced
to death. His execution in 1775 sparked outrage and unrest among the Indian populace, who
saw it as a miscarriage of justice and a symbol of British tyranny.

In the aftermath of the trial, the Nand Kumar case continued to reverberate throughout British
India, serving as a rallying cry for anti-colonial sentiment. It fueled discontent with British
rule and galvanized resistance against colonial exploitation and oppression.
In conclusion, the Raja Nand Kumar case was not merely a legal dispute between individuals
but a microcosm of the broader power struggles and injustices inherent in British colonial
rule. It underscored the challenges of administering justice within a colonial framework and
highlighted the systemic biases and inequalities that defined the colonial legal system.

COSSIJURAH CASE (1779)-

This concerned the claim .of the Supreme Court to exercise its jurisdiction over the .entire
native population, if a. writ served on them. In particular this dealt with its jurisdiction over
the Zamindars of Bengal, .Bihar and Orissa.

Facts; Kasinath Babu (K), loaned a large of money to Raja Cossijurah (C). He failed to
recover through the Board of Revenue. He filed a suit against C in the Supreme Court. He
submitted that C was a Zamindar, employed in the Revenue Collections so the Court had
jurisdiction. The court issued a writ of capias to arrest C or to provide a bail for 3 lakhs. C
avoided by hiding. Hence, the writ was returned unserved.

The collector informed Governor in council that as C was hiding ,there was loss of revenue-
collection. This was referred to the Advocate-General who opined that the Supreme Court
had- no jurisdiction over C. On the basis of this, the Governor-General 'in council notified
that Zamindars were not subject to jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Hence, C took no
further process of the Supreme Court.

Thereupon the Supreme Court issued a writ to seize the property of C, The sheriff went with
a small armed force to execute it. To meet this, Warren Hastings the Governor General sent
an army to arrest the Sheriffs and others. They were duly arrested and brought to Calcutta.

K filed a case for trespass against Warren Hastings the Governor General. First the Governor
General appeared before the Court but later defiled, the process of the court

The British Government intervened and passed the Act of Settlement 1781. This provided
that:

i) Governor General and Council were immune from the jurisdiction of Supreme Court,
ii) Supreme Court was not to have jurisdiction over revenue matters, iii) Natives were
immune,

PATNA CASE (1780)-

The importance of this is. that it showed that the Supreme Court had
jurisdiction to try judicial officers of the company for the acts done in the
course of their appointment.

Facts: One S.B.Khan came from Kabul, joined the army and earned a huge
wealth. He settled at Patna with his wife Nadirah (N). He had no issues.
His nephew B was brought from Kabul. Khan had a desire to adopt B. But,
before taking him in adoption he died. Tug arose between N and B.

B filed a petition in the Provincial Council at Patna claiming the property

as adopted son. The court appointed Law Officers-Kazi and Mufti- to make
inventory. This was an exparte proceeding as N had no notice, The law
officers went to the house of N, ill-treated N and made an inventory in an
irregular manner. The will and gift executed by K were held as forgery.
They recommended for the division of property into four parts. One part
would go to N. On the basis of this, the provincial Court at Patna ordered
for division, but the Supreme Court at Calcutta issued a writ of capias. All
the defendants, the Law Officers and B were arrested and detained in
custody.

The court held: The Law, Officers had acted in an irregular manner. Their
report was false, vexatious and unjustified. Held that the will and the gift-
deed were valid and awarded 3 lakhs as damages. The Officers were
punished as they were found to be corrupt.

The decision was neutralised by Act of Settlement 1781.

 ACT OF SETTLEMENT, 1781

Dissatisfaction with the SC_ Secret Committee appointed by the HoC to conduct an enquiry
 Act of Settlement of 1781 was passed by the Parl. Of England

Objectives-
1. Clarify the true intent and meaning of certain clauses
2. Support the lawful Govt of B,B and O so that revenue might be collected with
certainty
3. Maintain and protect inhabitants in enjoyment of ancient law, usages, rights and
privileges

1. GG and Council were immunized from the jurisdiction of the SC for all things done in
that public capacity, same applies for any person who has acted on their written orders
2. Revenue matters, collection of revenue, rent matters were totally excluded from
jurisdiction of the SC to avoid the conflict that had arisen in the Patna case

3. Any person employed by the EIC/any British subject excluded from jurisdiction in
matters of inheritance, succession or contract unless such an employee was a British
subject or Englishmen or unless he agreed in writing to refer any matter to the SC.
However, the jurisdiction to decide all actions against the inhabitants of Calcutta was
retained.
 4. Recognised the rights of family heads to inflict certain punishments and commands on
the members of the family.
5. English laws would not be applicable to natives. All matters of contracts and dealings
between native parties to be decided according to their personal law. If different
religions- religion of defendant. SC only had jurisdiction over inhabitants of Calcutta
6. Sadar Diwani Adalat- declared as a court of record with final jurisdiction in civil
matters. Appeal  Privy Council. Land revenue offences under jurisdiction of this
court. Not in any way, subordinate to SC.
7. SC could not hold native courts and judicial officers liable for anything done in that
capacity & consequences taking place in execution of the decree; SC could only take
cognizance of charges of corruption, but only after 1-3 months’ notice to officer, but
they would still not be liable for arrest and detention.

8. Indemnified the Governor-General and Council and persons who had acted under
their orders for acts done in resisting the process of the Supreme Court during and
after the Kasijora case.
9. Extensive legislative powers to the Governor- General and Council for the purpose of
making laws for Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. They could frame regulations for the
provincial courts and Councils, the copies of which were to be submitted within six
months of their enforcement to the Court of Directors of the Company and to one of
His Majesty’s Secretaries of State. His Majesty-in-Council had the right to allow,
disallow or amend any such regulation within two years. Such rules and regulations
were not to be placed before the Supreme Court.

Defects-
1. Unclear jurisdiction of SC with respect to Indians, power to issue instruments of
administration for Hindus or Muslims?
2. Did not define “inhabitants of Calcutta”; SC took the view that someone in Calcutta
for 24 hours is an inhabitant
3. No authority to issue writs against decisions of the Courts in Moffussil area/ habeas
corpus to release prisoners detained under the orders of these courts
 PITTS INDIA ACT, 1784

Reduced strength of the Councils: 4 members  3

Bombay and Madras govts made subordinate to GG C of Bengal

Subjected the EIC govt to the British govt’s superintendence and control; Centralisation of
legislative control and machinery

Power of Court of Directors in all pol and diplomatic matters- transferred to the Board of
Control.

Introduced dual government- Indian affairs were managed in England by 2 authorities: Board
of Control and Court of Directors

A copy of all dispatches from the EIC’s govt would go to the Board of Control; which would
issue orders and instructions to and through the Court of Directors
 CHARTER OF 1726

1. Establishment of corporations- each Presidency Town (Bombay, Calcutta, Madras/0-

Mayor + 9 Aldermen. Mayor elected every year by 9 aldermen and the retiring Mayor,
from amongst the Aldermen. Aldermen either appointed for life. Term of his residence
in the Presidency Town. Governor empowered to dismiss or remove any A on
reasonable cause.
Created a subordinate legi authority in each of the 3 Presidency Towns of India

2. Establishment of Mayor’s Court- consisting of Mayor + 9 Aldermen

Quorum- 3 of them (M + 2A, or Senior A + 2 A)
Declared to be Courts of Record, authorised to try, hear and determine all civil actions
and pleas parties inter se,
Courts granted testamentary jurisdiction and power to issue letters of admin. to the
legal heir of the deceased person.
Jurisdiction- all persons in the Presidency towns, working in subordinate factories

3. Procedure in Mayor’s Court

Sheriff, an officer of the court- was to serve the processes of the court
 Court issued summons directing the sheriff to order the defendant to appear before the
court; failed to appear- warrant issued, sheriff could arrest and present him before the
court; bail/ security- court empowered to release as it considered suitable
Judgement of the court- followed by a warrant of execution, sheriff authorised to
arrest and imprison the defendant

4. Appeals from Mayor’s Court

Appeal allowed to the G of the Presidency Town, period of 14 days
Decision of G final in all cases involving a sum less than 100 pagodas
1000 pagodas or more  further appeal against G’s decision allowed to be filed to the
Privy Council

5. Composition of Justices of Peace

G + 5 senior members of the Council will have criminal jurisdiction
Empowered to arrest and punish persons for petty criminal cases; following the
English pattern
Beginning of importing English ideas, technical forms and procedure of criminal
justice to India

6. Enactment of Legislation
Charter empowered G and C to make bye-laws, rules and ordinances, and to prescribe
punishments for its breach
Not contrary to English law, agreeable to reason

- Authoritative introduction of English law in India, civil and criminal courts derive their
authority from the King and not the company; became the fountain of justice for courts
in India. Introduction of new system of appeals from Indian courts to the Privy Council
in England. Common allegiance to the king.
- Application of English law to native Indians- first time administering English Law in
India, both common and statutory as it existed in England in 1726. No explicit mention
 of jurisdiction, Courts decided that they were empowered to exercise its jurisdiction
even in cases where both parties were native Indians

- Conflict about jurisdiction:

Bombay- SHIMPY CASE.

1. Conflict over jurisdiction: Governor Cowan and Mayor's Court clashed over the court's
authority regarding native matters of caste and religion in the "Shimpy" case in Bombay,
dating back to 1730.
2. Legal dispute: A Hindu woman of Shimpy caste converted to Roman Catholicism, leading
to a legal battle with her Hindu relatives over the custody of her 12-year-old son and some
jewels in the Mayor's Court.
3. Court ruling: Mayor's Court ordered the relatives to return the boy to his mother,
prompting the caste heads to complain to Governor Cowan, who concluded that religious and
caste matters were beyond the court's jurisdiction.
4. Mayor's protest: The Mayor, asserting the court's authority under the Charter of 1726,
protested the Governor's decision and threatened to appeal to the King-in-Council, prompting
his removal from a key post by the Governor.
5. Company intervention: The conflict was escalated to the Court of Directors of the
Company, who criticized the Bombay Council's actions and issued orders to prevent such
disputes in the future.

Madras-

TORRIANO
1. Legal immunity: In a civil suit filed by Torriano against Naish, the Mayor, the Mayor's
Court ruled that the Mayor was immune from legal action within the court.
2. Personal rivalry: Tensions arose between Naish, the Mayor, and the Governor due to
personal rivalry, jealousy, and mutual hatred, impacting their interactions.
3. Re-election dispute: In 1734, when Naish was re-elected as Mayor, the Governor of
Madras refused to allow him to take the oath of office, citing Charter provisions. Another
Mayor was elected by the Corporation as a result.
4. Persistent tensions: Despite a new Mayor assuming office, relations with the Governor
remained strained, indicating deep-seated causes of conflict between the two.
5. Continued discord: The historical events highlight the enduring nature of the discord
between Naish and the Governor, which persisted even after changes in leadership positions.

PAGODA OATH-
1. Conflict between Mayor’s Court and local inhabitants of Madras over oath-taking
procedures.
2. Court insisted on Hindu witnesses taking "Pagoda" oath instead of "Geeta" oath, leading to
fines and imprisonment.
3. Governor-in-Council intervened, remitting fines and releasing imprisoned Hindus.
4. Tension escalated between Mayor’s Court and Governor due to the incident.
5. Financial mismanagement: Mayor’s Court appropriated money from estates to cover its
expenses, leading to doubts about its financial integrity.

Calcutta:
Established in 1728, similar conflicts arose between the Mayor and Governor

CHARTER OF 1753

Political change in Madras-

1746- French captured Madras, brought it under temporary rule of Pondi, MC was suspended
1749- English recaptured Madras, realised the necessity of a suitable jud. machinery Charter
in 1753- reestablished the Mayor’s Court in the 3 presidency towns.

1. Restriction on jurisdiction-
Excluded from the jurisdiction of the court- all suits and actions between natives only, unless
both parties submitted them to the determination of the MC

2. Judiciary subservient to Executive-

Mayor to be nominated by the Government; MC was presided over persons selected from
among the junior servants of the company- inexperienced, ignorant, untrained
 3. Courts
Court of Request- Civil suits up to 5 pagodas, one for each Presidency Town
Mayor’s Court- Civil suits for more than 5 pagodas, one for each Presidency Town
Court of President and Council- Empowered to act as justices of the peace & Court of
Quarter Session to hear and decide criminal cases. Could also act as civil appellate court & in
that capacity to hear civil appeals from the Mayor’s Courts in the respective PTs
King-in-Council (Privy Council)- Highest court of appeal, hearing appeals from the court of
the President and Council in all civil cases involving a sum of 1000 pagodas or more

- Judiciary subservient to Executive

- No expertise in law
Judges ignorant of law, Gov and other officials as well misused their position for private
interests

- Jurisdiction conflict
Only the PTs were under the jurisdiction of the MCs, but the territorial jurisdiction was
not made clearer

- Expensive appeals
Difficulty of appealing to the Privy Council, expenses of going to London

- Exclusion of Indians

No Indian appointed to the Bench, only capacity was as jurors in the Sessions Court,
restricted only to those who accepted Christianity.