Scribd
Upload
5K views

Kamaluddin Case

This document summarizes the Kamaluddin case, which was the first open conflict between the Supreme Court and the Council in India regarding jurisdiction over various subjects, particularly the court's control of Diwani Rights. The key facts are that Kamaluddin was imprisoned for unpaid salt farm debts but obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the court. When the Council refused to obey the court order, it became a dispute over whether the court had jurisdiction over revenue cases. Ultimately the court discharged Kamaluddin again, and the Chief Justice justified the court's actions, asserting its role in preventing oppression in revenue collection. This case revealed a growing difference of opinion between the court and council.

Uploaded by

jeet somaiya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5K views

Kamaluddin Case

This document summarizes the Kamaluddin case, which was the first open conflict between the Supreme Court and the Council in India regarding jurisdiction over various subjects, particularly the court's control of Diwani Rights. The key facts are that Kamaluddin was imprisoned for unpaid salt farm debts but obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the court. When the Council refused to obey the court order, it became a dispute over whether the court had jurisdiction over revenue cases. Ultimately the court discharged Kamaluddin again, and the Chief Justice justified the court's actions, asserting its role in preventing oppression in revenue collection. This case revealed a growing difference of opinion between the court and council.

Uploaded by

jeet somaiya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

KAMALUDDIN CASE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Introduction
• Facts of the Case
• Conclusion
INTRODUCTION

• The first open conflict case between the Supreme


Court and the Council.
• Regarding the jurisdiction of various subjects.
• Precisely focused on the court’s control of the
Diwani Rights.
FACTS OF THE CASE

• Kamaluddin was the holder of salt farm in Hugli which was under the undivided district
of Medinipur in Bengal.
• He had huge debts of rent in 1775 to which the Revenue Council of Calcutta issued a writ
to his committal to prison without bail.
• On this he obtained a writ of Habeas Corpus from the Supreme Court giving out the
following reasoning, “In case of disputed accounts, the defendant should be provided bail
till the inquiry regarding his obligation to pay was completed and he is held liable.”
FACTS OF THE CASE

• The Council did not listen to the court, instead they rengarded the court’s order as
encroachment to the company’s Diwani rights.
• It said that the court had no right to interfere as there was no specific provision in the
Regulating Act which allowed the court to do so.
• The right was solely with the Governor General and the Council and hence a breach of
law on the grounds of exceeded jurisdiction according to the council.
• 3 Members out of 4 from the Council voted towards not obeying to the order of the court
FACTS OF THE CASE

• It is seen that after sometime Kamaluddin was arrested again, to which he again acquired
the writ of Habeas Corpus from the Court and finally was discharged by the Court.
• Chief Justice Impey in a letter to the court of Directors justified the Court's action on 2
grounds:
1. Usual Practice.
2. Refusal of being accused of assuming jurisdiction over revenue cases as such.
FACTS OF THE CASE

• Impey further justified that the court did not desire to interfere with the "ordering and
management" of the revenues, but the collection of revenues was a different matter.
• He asserted that the court that the court would be guilty of breach of trust, if it refuted to
take cognizance of violence and oppressions used in the collection of revenue.
CONCLUSION

• This case being backed by a few other instances created a difference of opinion between
the Court and the Council which was to manifest itself in a more violent form later along
with bringing out the inside work of Governor Warren Hastings and Chief Justice Elija
Impey.

You might also like