CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

PANCHANPUR-824236

Law of Crimes-II

‘Revenue and Judicial Reforms by Warren Hastings’

Under the Supervision of – Mrs.Suchi

Assistant Professor,
School of Law & Governance,
Central University of South Bihar

Submitted By -
RAJDEEP DUTTA
B.A. LL. B (Hons.) – 4TH Semester
Enrolment No. - CUSB1713125037
 DECLARATION

I , Rajdeep Dutta , hereby declare that , the project work entitled , ‘Judicial and Revenue
Reforms Introduced by Warren Hastings’ submitted to School Of Law and Governance , CUSB,
Gaya is record of an original work done by me under the able guidance of Assistant
Professor ‘Mr. Deep Narayan’ Faculty of School Of Law And Governance , CUSB, Gaya.

Rajdeep Dutta

CUSB17131250237

2|Page
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Objective of this project is to examine Judicial and Revenue Reforms by Warren Hastings
under Legal History. This project is descriptive and analytical in nature. Secondary and Electronic
resources have been largely used to gather information and data about the topic.

Books and other reference as guided by Faculty of School of Law and Governance have been
primarily helpful in giving this project a firm structure. Websites, dictionaries and articles have
also been referred.

Footnotes have been provided wherever needed to acknowledge the source. Citation has also been
provided.

3|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I, Rajdeep Dutta, take extreme pleasure in expressing my profound gratitude towards my legal
history teacher Mrs. Suchi (Assistant Professor, Law) for inspiring me and giving me the
invaluable guidance and constant support
throughout the course of my project work. I have taken efforts in thus kind project.

However, it would not have been possible without the kind support of my teacher, friends, colleagues
and many more individual persons, writers, college staffs,
librarians and other sources of e-resource. I would like to sincere thanks to all of them. I thank my
parents for providing me everything whatever be required for the completion of this project.

Finally, I would like to thank all Kith & Kins who are a little bit part in helping me for this kind
project.

Rajdeep Dutta

4|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration ......................................................................................................................2

Research Methodology ................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................6

JUDICIAL REFORMS .................................................................................................7

REVENUE REFORMS .............................................................................................. 10

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 14

REFERENCE…………………………………………………………………………………………..15

5|Page
 INTRODUCTION

In 1765, the company entered into an agreement with the Emperor whereby it obtained the diwani
of the three provinces of the Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Warren Hastings came as Governor of
Bengal in 1772 at the age of forty when he had been already two years in India. He had risen
regularly up the rungs of the civilian ladder from the position of a writer, the lowest grade in the
Company’s service. As a member of Vansittart’s council, he was posted as the resident at Murshidabad
Court. He returned to England after fourteen years’ service in India. Impressed by the ability with
which gave evidence before a committee of the House of Commons, he was sent back to India as
the second of the Madras Council in 1769. He was next appointed Governor of Bengal towards the
end of 1771 and he assumed charge early in 1772. Warren Hastings (December 6, 1732 - August
22, 1818) was the first and most well-known governor general of British India, from 1773 to 1785.
He was famously impeached in 1787 for corruption and acquitted in 1795. He was made a Privy
Councilor in 1814. His contributions to establishing the British empire in India are noteworthy,
especially in reference to his administrative feats. During his time as governor-general, Hastings
was instrumental in implementing innovative reforms. He also was involved in two wars in the
region. After the Diwani rights were attained by the colonial giant, the role of proper
implementation had fell on the then governor of Bengal presidency- Warren Hastings, as his
predecessors starting right from the times of Lord Clive had condoned the oppressions of Ryots by
Zamindars and petty tyrants which was proving to be detrimental to the colonial administration in
these areas. Keeping into mind such a corrupted set up, Warren Hastings went on to introduce
reformative judicial and revenue measures because of the following reasons: -

• Judicial Reforms:-Judicial reform is the complete or partial political reform of a country's

judiciary. Judicial reform is often done as a part of wider reform of the country's political
system or a legal reform.
• Revenue Reforms: -Revenue reform is a change and it can facilitate government stability
and independence as governments collect more revenue to finance essential public services
and other expenditure needs without recourse to external assistance

6|Page
 JUDICIAL REFORMS

Warren Hastings carried out a large number of reforms in the judicial sphere. In 1772, he
established Diwani Adalat (Civil Court) and a Faujdari Adalat (Criminal Court) in each district.
The Diwani Adalat was presided over by the English collector and Faujdari Adalat was presided
over by Indian officers Qazis and Muftis. Two courts of appeal were established at Calcutta. They
are the Sadar Diwani Adalat (the Supreme of Civil Court) and the Sadar Nizamat Adalat (the
Supreme Criminal Court) which heard appeals from the Diwani Adalat and Faujdari Adalat
respectively. He also compiled a simple code about the personal laws of Hindus and Muslims.
Under the Mughal system, the diwan was in charge of the revenue collection of the
Subah and to decide all cases related to land and land revenue. With the grant of the Diwani (1765)
the Company also obtained the responsibility of the civil justice. With the change in the revenue
system, therefore, change in the system of civil justice was inevitable.

The Criminal justice was, however, the responsibility of the Nizamat, as such the Company had
no right to effect any change in the criminal law a criminal justice. But the Company did not regard
this legal distinction in the powers of the Company and the Nawab in civil and criminal justice.

It may be mentioned here that judicial system in Bengal before Hastings’ reforms was very
unsatisfactory. The Zamindars were in charge of both the civil and criminal justice in their own
areas and arbitration rather than judicial trial was the popular method of justice. “Every decision
is a corrupt bargain with the highest bidder. Trifling offenders are frequently loaded with heavy
demands and capital offences are as often absolved by the renal judge.” (Verelst) Interference by
the Company’s servants or their servants made the situation worse still. With Company’s obtaining
the grant of Diwani the Civil Justice became the responsibility of the Company and it was defrayed
through the naib-diwan of the Company.

Warren Hastings addressed himself to the task of reform of judicial system immediately after the
new revenue Settlement in 1772. On the recommendation of the Committee of Court he set up a
Diwani Adalat and a Faujdari Adalat in each district and called them Mofussil Diwani Adalat and
Mofussil Faujdari Adalat.
7|Page
Mofussil Diwani Adalat:
This court was presided over by the Collector of the district, and. it was competent to decide
relating to inheritance relating to Zamindari and taluqdari. It also decided all cases relating to
landed property, caste, marriage, debts etc. If the litigants were Hindus, the Hindu Law and custom
would be applicable and in the case of Muslims, the Muslim law and custom. This court was
competent to deal with cases up-to the value of Rs.500. An-appeal against the decisions of the
Mofussil Diwani Adalat would, however, lie to the Sadar Diwani Adalat at Calcutta which was
constituted of the Governor and two members of his council assisted by Indian Officers.

Mofussil Faujdari Adalat:

The Mofussil Faujdari Adalat was competent to try all criminal cases. Only in cases where the
accused was awarded capital punishment, the punishment had to be sent to the Sadar Nijam Adalat
which was presided over by the Nawab. Nawab’s confirmation was necessary for Capital
punishment or confiscation of property. The Mofussil Faujdari Adalat was presided by an Indian
Officer of the Company who was assisted by a Qazi, a Mufti and two Maulavis. The Collector of
the district had power of supervision over the Mofussil Faujdari Adalat and he could see that the
evidence was duly considered, and impartial judgment arrived at.

From the Mofussil Faujdari Adalat appeal would lay to the Sadar Nizamat Adalat at Murshidabad.
The Sadar Nizamat Adalat was presided over by the Nizam who would be assisted by the Chief
Qazi, Chief Mufti and three expert Maulavis. The President and Council at Calcutta exercised right
of control and supervision over the Sadar Nizamat Adalat.

Supreme Court at Calcutta:

In 1773 Regulating Act was passed by the British Parliament in order to control and regulate the
affairs of the East India Company in India. Besides provisions relating to general administration
etc. this Act provided for, the establishment of a Supreme Court at Calcutta with a Lord Chief
Justice and three puisne judges under him. This court was competent to by all British subjects.
Over Calcutta and the English factories, the Court exercised jurisdiction over all persons European
or non-European.

8|Page
But outside this jurisdiction if parties would agree, their case might be heard by this Court. The
Supreme Court administered English laws. It may be mentioned here that the Sadar Diwani Adalat
and Sadar Nizamat Adalat with their subordinate Adalat administered justice according to Hindu
and Muslim laws, supplemented by the capacity.

The Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction and actually did exercise it over all persons and not only
ignored the authority of the Company’s courts but even entertained cases against the judges of
those\ courts, by cases again which had already been tried by other courts. This court began to
exercise jurisdiction over Zamindars and others who were neither British subjects nor servants of
the British subjects All this was being done taking advantage of the failure of the Regulating Act
in defining the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This was also responsible for the conflict
between the Supreme Court and Supreme Council which will be discussed elsewhere.

Other Judicial Reforms of Hastings:

Hastings’ reforming hands touched a variety of subjects. As the Company’s Courts, i.e. the district
and Sadar Courts used to deal many cases according to Hindu and Muslim laws, Hastings caused
a translation of the Sanskrit, i.e. Hindu Laws in a Code called Code of Gentoo Laws was published
in 1776.

He also introduced:

(i) The system of preserving the records of judicial cases,

(ii) That cases would become time-barred if not instituted within twelve years from the time of
the cause of action,

(iii) The debtor could not be tortured after taking him to the house of the creditor,

(iv) Prohibited imposition of heavy furies by courts,

(v) Rate of interest was fixed at Rs.100/-,

(vi) Application of the Hindu laws in cases of the Hindus and Mohammedan law in cases of the
Muslims was formally accepted, and

(vii)abolished the system of acceptance of fees by the Qazis, Muftis etc. from those who would
seek justice and instead he introduced payment of salaries to them.

9|Page
 REVENUE REFORMS

Although the Company had got the diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa in 1765, the work of
collection of land revenue had been left in the hands of amils. Warren Hastings decided that the
Company must directly collect the revenue. Consequently, he appointed collectors for revenue
collection and administration, who were to be helped by native officers. Settlement was made for
five years with the highest bidders. To supervise the whole organization, a Board of Revenue was
established at Calcutta. This revenue system was found to be defective and consequently in 1777
the old system of bidding for a year was resorted to. He made the account of revenue simple and
intelligible and made many provisions for the protections of riots. In 1772, he introduced a new
system, known as the farming system1. In 1773, it decided to manage the land revenues directly.
Warren Hastings auctioned the right to collect revenue to the highest bidders.
The Court of Directors instructed him that the Company must “stand forth as Dewan” and take
over the Civil administration directly in the hands of the Company. This was, in the words of
Warren Hastings, “implanting the authority of the Company, and the Sovereignty of Great
Britain, in the constitution of the country”. This was only a half-way house measure towards the
British Crown’s taking over of their conquests. It continued to remain in this state until the Revolt
of 1857 precipitated its completion.

Hasting’s first task was the abolition of the officers of the Naib-Diwans of Bihar and Bengal and
prosecute the Naib-Diwans Shitab Rai and Muhammad Reza Khan for peculation and tyranny.
Hastings had to do all this under instruction from the Directors.

He was also instructed to use Nanda Kumar, former Naib-Diwan who had been ousted by the
Company to put in Reza Khan in that position as their representative and was not to be removed
by the Nawab without Company’s consent. Hastings was ordered by the Directors to give the
whole matter of deposing the Naib-Diwans an ethical colour by staging a formal trial of the two.
This was obviously a political measure to meet any possible opposition to the deposition of the

1
Bandyopadhyay sekhar; From plassey to partition and after; pg. no- 82, orient blackswan pvt.ltd. (Hyderabad) 2nd
edition
10 | P a g e
two native high officials. Shitab Rai naib-diwan of Bihar was acquitted honorably and Hastings
himself wrote: “Indeed I scarce know why he was called to account”. Muhammad Reza Khan was
also ultimately acquitted.

The burden that lay on one man—Warren Hastings—was too heavy to bear. He aptly described
the situation as “every part of the Government had been clogged”. But Hastings’ ability-was
Herculean, and he addressed to the job with ability and efficiency.

He reduced the allowance of the Nawab to sixteen lakhs from thirty-two and this was the third
reduction of allowance which was fifty-three lakhs in 1765, reduced to forty-one lakhs in 1766, to
thirty-two lakhs in 1769. Hastings, however, cannot be blamed for the third reduction (to sixteen
lakhs) for it was done under the orders of the Court of Directors.

Hastings now turned his attention to work out a satisfactory system of revenue administration and
to reform the civil justice which was a part of it. In 1769 Supervisors were appointed and they had
been given a roaming mission to study the revenue system in their districts.

But they had neither any training nor any inclination to have a clear idea of the revenue system of
the time. Hastings appointed a Committee of Circuit which was to visit each district to effect
revenue settlement with tax farmers or Zamindars. A preliminary revenue settlement was made for
five years, lands being farmed out by auction to the highest bidder, although a few hereditary
Zamindars were appointed tax farmers in this process, the system of rack-renting kept most of the
hereditary Zamindars houses out, and fortune-seekers became the highest bidders in their eagerness
to realize whatever they could within the span of five years without any thought of the ability of
the riots to pay the higher demand of revenue.

Hastings proceeded from the motion that the State was the Supreme landlord which was contrary
to Hindu theory; although the Muslim theory was that the land of the conquered belonged to the
conqueror. To the English, the status of revenue farmers posed a difficult problem. Under the
Mughal revenue system, the revenue farmers or Zamindars had become a heterogeneous body of
descendants of old Hindu chiefs, court-favorites, farmer officials etc.

But by the middle of the eighteenth century the Mughal system of land revenue had almost
completely decayed, and the English Company found the revenue System in utter confusion.
11 | P a g e
Hasting’s revenue settlement, therefore, was experimental. He ignored the claims of hereditary
Zamindars and strongly objected to the Zamindars being accepted as the owners of (he lands
subject to payment of a fixed rent.

He appointed collectors, one in each district, in place of the supervisors. The collectors had no
settlement or assessment work to do, for this was done by the Committee of Circuit, Hastings
himself accompanying it. The collectors were under strict orders to prevent the Zamindars from
raising rents and Indians were appointed to assist them.

A Board of Revenue with the Governor and his Council was constituted with its seat in Calcutta
upon which was entrusted the highest authority in revenue matters. The treasury of the diwani was
shifted from Murshidabad to Calcutta.

Hastings’ revenue experiment proved a failure largely due to the lack of caliber and power of the
Collectors. Physical difficulty in dealing with villages throughout the deltaic plain added to their
difficulty. The Collectors only added to the confusion. Defaults were frequent, the evils of settling
lands with speculators of poor standing led to the hopeless failure of the quinquennial settlement.
Bengal Presidency was put under six Revenue Boards and the system of Collectors was abolished.
A Metropolitan Revenue Board was placed upon all these six Revenue Boards.

Thompson and Garratt are reluctant to put the blame for the failure of the quinquennial settlement
on Warren Hastings on the grounds that he was not responsible for legal chaos produced by the
Regulating Act of 1773; he had to satisfy the rapacity of the Court of Directors at London who had
an unusually exaggerated notion about the wealth of Bengal which forced him to assess the revenue
too high. Further, he had not the staff, Indian or English, under him who had the knowledge, probity
or willingness to carry out his scheme.

It is also contended by Thompson and Garratt that the criticism of Hastings in ignoring the claims
of the hereditary Zamindars is untenable because according to them due to the anarchy in the early
eighteenth century a large proportion of the Zamindars were adventurers, many of whom had secret
link with gangs of robbers, dacoits and river pirates. Hastings indeed failed to provide an
alternative policy, but Thompson and Garratt pointed out that the Zamindars did not justify the

12 | P a g e
later policy of Permanent Settlement “by their services to the country-side or their treatment
of the tenantry”.

Yet we cannot lose sight of the facts that the system of settling land by auction to the highest bidder
brought in fresh horde of speculators who, not sure of a renewal of tenancy, exploited to the utmost.
The Company’s servants themselves also participated in the bidding at the auction through their
banians or servants. Warren Hastings also cannot escape the charge of corruption. There was a
grant of land registered in the name of a ten-year old son of Can-too Bamboo (Krishna kanta
Nandy), a banian of Warren Hastings, inordinately high assessment, despite pressure from
Directors for it, should have been resisted by him. This, added to the harshness of collection,
contributed to the failure of Hasting’s revenue experiment. “Hastings failed, but his policy is
important because it marks the first tentative effort to evolve the district system and the
district Officer”.

After the expiry of the term of quinquennial settlement in 1776, Hastings reverted to annual
revenue settlement on the basis of open auction to highest bidder. Preference was, however, given
to Zamindars in settling land. In the same year (1776) Hastings appointed the A mini Commission
for gathering information about the land revenue system of Bengal and on the basis of this
abolished the six Provincial Councils of revenue and reappointed the collectors, one to each district
in 1781.

According to Penderal Moon all the members of the abolished Provincial Councils had to be
provided with job under direction from the Directors and Hastings had to absorb many of these
former members of the Provincial Councils as collectors and judges of Diwani Adalats. Quanugos
who had been an important Mughal revenue staff and who had ceased to function were reappointed
and the supervision of the entire revenue system was centralized in the hands of the Committee of
Revenue at Calcutta.

13 | P a g e
CONCLUSION

Warren Hastings was a versatile genius. He has a limitless energy and strong determination. In
spite of their difficulties which he had to encounter in the country he was able to accomplish a lot.
He carried out a large number of reforms.

14 | P a g e
 REFERENCES

• https://www.legalbites.in/adalat-system-reforms-warren-hastings
• http://www.historydiscussion.net/history-of-
india/warrenhastings/
• https://www.adamsmithinternational.com/
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-reforms-warren-hastings

15 | P a g e