NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE

UNIVERSITY

AN OVERVIEW OF

REFORMS INTRODUCED BY LORD CORNWALLIS IN ADALAT

SYSTEM

HISTORY-II

SUBMITTED TO

Prof.
UDAY PRATAP SINGH

SUBMITTED BY:

ANAND LAKRA

2009 B.A.LL.B -63

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………….3.

2. SCHEME OF 1787……………………………………………………………..4.

3. SCHEME OF 1790……………………………………………………………..7.

4. SCHEME OF 1793……………………………………………………………...14.

5. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………19.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………20.

2
 INTRODUCTION

Lord Earl Cornwallis is known as the father of Indian judiciary. He was the third Governor-General of India
after Warren Hasting and John MacPherson. His Governorship extended from 1786 to 1793. He was
a British army officer and colonial administrator. He is best remembered as one of the leading generals in
the American War of Independence. Before coming to India British force led by him surrendered to the
combined American-French force at the siege of Yorktown. Despite this defeat, he retained the confidence
of successive British governments and continued to enjoy an active career.
At that time British Administration was facing evils like bribery, corruption and the evils of private trade
and problems relating to land revenue . To tackle all these he introduced judicial reforms and enforced new
regulations for trading. He introduced reforms in judiciary thrice first in 1787, second in 1790 and last in
1793. He brought revolutionary changes in Indian judiciary. Warren Hastings’s departure from India was
followed by the 20 months rule by John Macpherson, a senior member of the council. After Macpherson in
1786 Lord Cornwallis was appointed Governor-General. Apart from taking care of the administration Lord
Cornwallis was also on military enterprise. He had to face huge resistance from Tipu Sultan. This resulted in
the Third Anglo-Mysore War. The war ended with Tipu`s surrender of half of his kingdom to the British. 
He made remarkable changes in both civil and criminal judicial system. Changes introduced by him in
Bengal, Bihar and Orissa were later adopted in the presidency towns of Bombay and Madras.
Conditions by Cornwallis: - Lord Cornwallis laid down two conditions before he accepted the post of
Governor-General. His first condition was that the Governor-General would have power to override his
council. Further, he said that the office of Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief would be united
under one person. Both of his conditions were accepted and the Governor-General became the ruler of
British India under Board of Control and Court of Directors. Since then the Governor-General and Council
turned into Governor-General-in-Council and this position continued up to 1947.

3
 SCHEME OF 1787

Pretext of the Scheme

In the judicial plan of 1781, Warren hasting made the provision of separate revenue and judicial department.
Things were in a better condition before Lord Hasting left India. But after his exit demands were raised by
the senior company servants to merge both department as it was earlier. They argued that it was not
advisable to keep both departments separate, as it was very costly to maintain these two organizations
separately.
A very senior civil servant, Sir John Shore, who later replaced Lord Cornwallis as Governor-General, also
advocated the same reunion of both departments. He even said in his argument that Indians had always lived
in an arbitrary and despotic government, and therefore the form of British Government should be despotic,
so that Indians remained in their earlier condition i.e. under submission that are familiar and natural to them.
He further argued that it was impossible to draw a line between revenue collection and judicial
administration. Many a times such a condition occurred that it was not possible to determine to which
department a specific case belonged. An injunction could be easily brought against the revenue collection by
simply filling a case in an adalat.
There were many grounds on which company servants argued their merger, but the main reason behind this
was to make revenue collection effective by making collector as the judge. However, this cannot be said as a
positive step as the collector then again would become the absolute centre of power and he would not
hesitate in abusing his power. In April 1786, the Court of Directors granted their demands and vested the
judicial, revenue and magisterial functions in one person, Lord Cornwallis. The Court of Director assumed
that this step would be in consonance with Indian customs and traditions and be more economical.

Outlines of the Scheme

As mentioned earlier the key goal of this scheme was to solidify the economy, yet Cornwallis went other
way and increased the salaries of collectors. He justified his step by decreasing the number of districts from
36 to 23. He, through this scheme, introduced changes through two regulations. First was related to the
revenue administration and second was for the administration of justice.

4
Collector as revenue administrator: - In each district, a company’s servant was appointed as collector. His
work was to collect revenue and to decide all the cases relating directly or indirectly to the revenue
collection. For this purpose a separate court was established in each district for deciding cases related to
revenue collection called mal adalat. Appeals from mal adalat were to go firstly to the Board of Revenue in
Calcutta, and then finally to Governor-General-in-Council.

Collector as judge of civil court: - Collector was also to act as a judge in the district mofussil diwani adalat
to decide civil cases. A collector was also supposed to give judgment in the cases related to the succession
and boundaries of zamindaries and talukdaries. In cases of successions to zamindaries the adalat was also to
check whether they were regulated by any general usages of the area where the dispute arose, or any
particular usage of the family. He also had to discharge his duties as magistrate in the district. Appeals from
the diwani adalat laid to the Sadar Diwani Adalat in the matter involving 1000 or more. Sadar Adalat was
consisted of Governor-General-in-Council and native law officers to assist them. A further appeal could be
laid down to King-in-Council in the cases involving 5000 pounds or more.

While discharging his duties as magistrate he was empowered to try, arrest and punish criminals in petty
offences. He could also give a 15 days imprisonment to the criminals indulged in petty offences. In the cases
of severe crimes he could send the arrested criminals to the mofussil fozdari adalat for trial and punishment.
All Europeans who were not British were the subject matter of mofussil fozdari adalat as were Indians.

A collector had to discharge both his functions as revenue collector and judge of civil court same time and
he had to keep both these functions separate from each other. So, he was supposed to perform a tough task
and this could not be done without some assistance. A provision was made for the appointment of a
subordinate officer known as registrar in each adalat to provide aid and assistance to the collector in
discharging his duties. He was to decide the cases up to Rs.200 in the mofussil diwani adalat. But his
judgment would be valid only with the signature of the collector so as to avoid any miscarriage of justice.

Appraisal of the Scheme

Prior to 1787 the Englishmen residing in the interior area i.e. beyond Calcutta were subject of the criminal
jurisdiction only of the Supreme Court and a case could not be filled in the mofussil fozdari adalat against
them. So, if one was to file a case against an Englishmen one had to move to Calcutta for doing the same on
his own expenses. No device was there to bring them to book. This encouraged the Englishmen to indulge in
criminal activities as they also knew that Indians didn’t have adequate resources to bring them to court. In

5
the present scheme the provision was made that a magistrate could take British subjects into custody. After
making initial inquiry he could send the accused to Calcutta for the trial if he had sufficient grounds for his
conviction. The prosecutor and the witnesses also had to move to Calcutta and they didn’t have enough
money than the state would bear their expenses.
Another good point of this scheme was that it recognized native customs and usages in the cases related to
succession of zamindaries.

Defects of the Scheme

The major defect of this scheme was that it made civil justice again subservient to the revenue collection. It
was a retrograde step for the administration of civil justice as more emphasis was given to the revenue
collection than administration of justice. Another defect was that the collector alone was to perform so
many functions that were not possible for a normal human being. Although he had a registrar under him to
assist him but registrar could not work independently. He could not decide cases on his own and the final
signature was to be done by the collector only. More over the collector was again made a powerful
personality, who was to perform several functions without any check on him at the local level. It increased
the chances that he would abuse his powers.

6
 SCHEME OF 1790

Pretext of the Scheme

After reforming administration of civil justice Cornwallis introduced reforms in the area of criminal justice.
It seems that Cornwallis needed some time to understand situation regarding the criminal law in India. He
took his time and introduced new scheme for the reorganization of criminal judicature in 1790. This scheme
was much needed to reorganize criminal judicature as the situation regarding to this was at its worst that
time. Cornwallis found that there existed a general sense of insecurity of life and property, rampant
corruption was there in courts and jails were overcrowded. The whole system was defective and desperately
needed a change.

Deprivation of Justice

The administration of criminal justice was still depended on the Muslim law officers. There still existed
some authority of Nawab in this sphere. Kazis muftis and moulvies used to sit as a judge in the Mofussil
diwani adalat. On the other hand Sadar Diwani Adalat which was situated in the Murshirabad and this court
was presided over by Reza Khan who was Naib Nizam at that time. He was enjoying absolute power in the
matters concerning criminal judicature. He could hire and fire any subservient judge any time. He had a
minimal contact with Governor-General and Council. So, he had no one to answer as the Nawab was not a
powerful figure. His judgments were final and were executed without giving any information to the
remembrance. Even if some information was given to him it would just relate to the prisoner’s name, his
offence and the punishment awarded to him. No where it was mentioned on what grounds the punishment
was awarded to the convict. So, the remembrance could hardly do anything and thus he was ineffective too.
He, at the max, could bring the cases regarding injustice and corruption to the Governor-General and
Council. Then Governor-General and Council could only ask Naib Nizam to take effective steps to resolve
them. But, then it was up to the Naib Nizam to take any action which he hardly used to do. So, the
government had hardly any control over the criminal judicature. Although the office of magistrate was under
the government’s control but it had very limited functions. Most of the criminal trials were held either under

7
Muslim officers or under Naib Nizam. There existed a chaotic condition as regards to the criminal
judicature.

Reasons for the Chaotic Condition in Criminal Judicature

The Muslim officers who were the judges in the Sadar Nizamat Adalat or Mofussil Nizamat Adalat used to
get their salaries from the allowances given to Nawab by the company. So, it is quite obvious that the used
to get a very low salary for their judicial work and hence they had to depend on the bribes and other corrupt
means to maintain the dignity of their office and families. They didn’t get even their salaries on time and
they remained in debts for several months. More over they didn’t have job security. Niab Nizam could throw
them out of office anytime.

Another factor which was affecting the criminal judicature was that an educated person who belonged to
good family and of high morals was not at all attracted towards being a judge in such a chaotic situation.
Only the persons who were uneducated, unemployed and were in need of money through whatever means
accepted the post as judge. So, a fair and just decision could not be accepted from them. As they were
uncertain about their tenure they tried to get rich as soon as possible to lead a comfortable life after their
dismissal. They were just in need of money to lead their life and that’s why they indulge in corrupt
activities, such as taking bribes and giving biased judgment. Judgment of the court could be brought by
simply paying some bribe to the judges. So, there existed a miscarriage of justice. Poor, innocent people had
to suffer severe punishment as they didn’t have enough resourced to pay as bribes and on the other hand
offenders like robbers either got acquitted by the court or got less punishment as they could pay bribe as per
the wish of the judges. This system encouraged crimes as the criminals had in their mind that they could
easily get acquitted by paying bribes.
Even the witnesses were not ready to come to court as they knew already that the offender was going to be
acquitted by the court by paying bribe and after the acquittal he would surely going to take a revenge of it.

More over criminal judicature was mainly centered to the mofussil diwani adalat. Only the cases related to
life and limb were sent to the Sadar Nizamat Adalat. Neither the government nor the Sadar Nizamat Adalat
had effective control over the acts of mofussil diwani adalat due to their geographical farness. Mofussil
adalat used to have unlimited powers as most of the cases fall under its ambit. Even the cases which were
sent from the mofussil adalat to Sadar adalat mofussil adalat played a vital role. In such cases Sadar adalats
were dependent on the record sent by the mofussil adalat. Mofussil adalat could manufacture and produce
any record in front of Sadar adalat so as to make it sure that who was going to acquit or who was going to be
punished at the Sadar adalat.

8
Delay in Criminal Proceedings

The proceedings in the nizamat adalat either mofussil or sadar took too much time and were tardy and
played a vital role in raising the plight of the prisoners. Mostly this situation arose in the mofussil adalats as
they generally had a large number of cases. Magistrate had a meager power so he generally used to send
cases to the mofussil adalat. On the other hand only the cases involving the question of life and limb were
further moved to sadar adalat. So, the mofussil adalats were overburdened. More over the witnesses took
more than the expected time for the reason mentioned earlier. In a case a prisoner had been confined in
prison for more than 10 years on the charge of murder without being sentenced. Same were the situation
with the sadar adalats. There proceedings remained confusing and chaotic. Reports were sent from the
mofussil adalats of the cases to be decided by the sadar adalats. But these cases remained there for several
years without being disposed of. Many a times adalat itself intentionally prolonged the cases so as the
prosecutor himself withdraw the cases and the adalat need not to take extra burden for giving judgment. All
this created lots of problem like prosecutor and the witnesses had to wait for a long period for the judgment
and they by that time had to move court by and then. By the passage to time conviction of crime got difficult
as it was difficult to keep the evidence intact for such a long period. Sometimes prisoners remained behind
the bars for much more time than the punishment of their crime. So an acquitted prisoner was no more
remained a contented person. He had lost his health, wealth and reputation. Even the condition of prisons
was so insanitary that many of the prisoners died during their trial. So, there was a need of change in the
system. Punishment must follow the crime so an example could be set for others.

In that period the point also to be noticed was that the punishment was no where related to the crime which
was committed. Punishment was depended on the character of judges. There was not any strict provision to
be followed. Like for robbery the punishment varied from 39 stripes to loss of limb and death. Theft was
usually to be punished by loss of limb. The sentence of confinement during pleasure could be applied from
serious offences like murder to minor offences. A criminal getting such punishment was supposed to remain
in prison for his lifetime unless he pays some bribe to the officers.
There existed a misapplication of law due to rampant corruption in the machinery. Judges having guided by
bribes used to give biased judgment. Serious offenders were discharged with very minimal punishment and
the innocent and minor offenders got severe punishment. Persons who confessed their crimes got more
severe punishment than those who didn’t confess even if the court had strong evidence against them. In one
case two men with large arms plundered the zamindar and murdered a man. One of the offenders got one

9
month imprisonment and another was supposed to provide a bond of good conduct. In another case two
armed persons with a mob of 400 people plundered the zamindar and murdered 8 persons there. One of the
accused was sentenced to 10 days imprisonment and rests were acquitted. Most of the robbers were
protected by the zamindars. They used to pay bribes from their behalf and thus it was very difficult to keep a
robber in imprisonment for a long time.

Questionnaire Issued

Lord Cornwallis was worried about the situation regarding criminal judicature. For getting profound
information he issued questionnaire for the district magistrates. He included the following 9 questions in his
questionnaire.
1. What is the average time length between the commitment and sentence on prisoners?
2. Do murder and robbery punished with death sentences or not?
3. Officers get their salaries within the stipulated time or not?
4. Are their allowances adequate for their situations?
5. Are the officers qualified by the education and principles for the trial of prisoners?
6. Are the prisoners well treated or ill treated during confinement?
7. Do the principles of Muslim law appear well adapted to the suppression of crimes or not?
8. What effective means could be adapted to suppress dacoity and water robbers?
9. What are the most effectual means to reform the mofussil police to the minimum expenses of the
government?
Cornwallis found disastrous results out of the questionnaire. He found this system totally useless, corrupt
and rotten to this core. He felt that an efficient administration of criminal justice is necessary for the
maintenance of law and order and same is requisite for the security of life and property without which
welfare and prosperity of a nation cannot be ensured. So, Cornwallis decided to bring changes in the area of
criminal justice. He found that existing situation in the area of criminal justice is because of the defects
which exist in the Muslim law that were contrary to the natural justice and the defects in the constitution of
the courts.
Cornwallis decided to separate all the powers from Nawab relating to the criminal justice through a new
scheme.

10
Outlines of the Scheme

On December 3, 1790 Lord Cornwallis brought a new scheme for criminal justice administration. It contains
followings important feature: -
1. This scheme totally abolished the authority of Nawab from the sphere of criminal justice.
2. It transferred the administration of criminal justice from Muslim law officers to English men.
3. Muslim law officers remained in the court just to expound law.
4. Governor could now closely supervise the administration of criminal justice.
Thus the criminal judicature was placed on the same footing as the civil judicature had been since 1772.

Three Branches

This scheme had three branches. At the lowest level were the magistrates in the districts. Above it a new
Court of Circuit was created and on the highest level was the Sadar Nizamat Adalat. The venue of Sadar
Nizamat Adalat was now shifted from Murshirabad to Calcutta so Governor-General-in-Council could
closely monitor it. Governor-General-in-Council now to sit as a judge in the Sadar Nizamat Adalat and the
authority of Nawab over it no longer exists. Kazis and Muftis remained in the court to expound the law. The
operative law here was the Muslim Law which could be amended by the Governor-General-in-Council. This
adalat was to sit at least once a week and was to maintain diary of all proceedings. If it thought that a
prisoner deserved mercy than it could send it to the Governor-General-in-Council for pardon or easing of the
punishment.

Lord Cornwallis also brought about changes in mofussil nizamat adalat. He reorganized the entire system.
He divided districts of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa into four divisions namely Patna, Calcutta, Murshirabad and
Dacca. A Court of Circuit was established in each of the districts replacing earlier mofussil nizamat adalat. It
consisted of two English servants who could decide all criminal cases. It was not a stationary court and it
could move from place to place within the division to try the accused persons. It was to visit each district
within its jurisdiction twice a year to dispose the criminal cases. This court was also to assisted by the Kazis
and Muftis. They could not be removed by till their tenure was over except by the Governor-General-in-
Council on charges of misconduct and incapacity. Salaries were increased of these law officers so they keep
themselves with bribe and men of good character and ability could be attracted towards these offices. These
officers were to propose the futwa in each case and court was to pass sentence according to that fatwa. But

11
in case court refused the futwa or in case of death or perpetual imprisonment it was to send to the Sadar
Nizamat Adalat.

The collector was also to act as a magistrate in each district. He was to arrest the accused person and hold an
inquiry against him. He could himself award punishment to the petty offenders which could not exceed 15
canes or 15 days imprisonment. He could even acquit a person against whom no charges were found. He
was to bring criminals to the Court of Circuits if the crime was of much serious nature. He could also grant
bail to the accused except persons suspected for murder, robbery, theft, and trespassing. He had to report to
Sadar Nizamat Adalat about the orders passed by him once in a month.

No special provisions were made in connection to the Englishmen residing in the mofussil areas. They were
treated by the same provisions of the charter of 1787 until new provisions came in 1793.

Appraisal of the Scheme

Under this new scheme the office of remembrance was abolished. By this scheme Governor-General and the
members of the Council assumed a full fledged responsibility of criminal justice administration as now
Nawab had no authority over it. Tenure and the salaries of the law officers were now fixed so they can
perform their task impartially and effectively. There existed a principle of checks and balances in the whole
system. Magistrate were to perform their task under Court of Circuits, but the final decisions relating to the
trial of serious offences were to be given by Sadar Nizamat Adalat only.

Later Reforms
In 1792, government announced that it would pay a small daily allowance to all prosecutors and witnesses
for their stay in the Court of Circuit and for their journey to come and return to their place. This provision
was made so that the poor indigenous persons could come to court without worrying about the expenses.
Government also adopted measures to help those prisoners who were discharged from prison after serving a
long term. This provision was made so that these persons would not indulge in the same business again. For
this, government decided to pay a sufficient sum to those who had served imprisonment for 6 months or
more to maintain them for a month.

Defects of the Scheme

Major defect of this scheme was that it put much burden on the Court of Circuit as it was earlier to the
mofussil nizamat adalat. But mofussil adalats were present in each district and on the other hand Court of
Circuit existed only at 4 places. More over the power of magistrate remained meager as it was earlier. So
12
much of the accused had to remain in prison waiting for their trial by the Court of Circuit when it visited the
district for the same. A person who was accused of theft could neither be tried by the magistrate nor could
he get a bail and thus he had to wait for the Court of Circuit to conduct his trial. Another defect of this
scheme was that it didn’t provide any specific provision for the trial of Englishmen residing in the mofussil
areas. The provisions of scheme of 1787 were continued here only. This remained the situation till 1793.

SCHEME OF 1793

Pretext of the Scheme

As mentioned earlier scheme of 1787 vested judicial and revenue functions on the same person i.e. the
collector. He was at once judge, revenue collector and magistrate at the district level. Most of the powers
within the district vested on him. This scheme was at one side convenient, economic and simple to
implement. On the other side this scheme didn’t secure public security and its welfare just for the reason that
the collector didn’t have any overriding authority at the local level. The large distance between the seat of
Governor and that of collector made it impossible to control his actions. So, collector was the absolute
authority at the district. No checks and balancing scheme was present to monitor the actions of collector.
Theoretically one could complain the Governor-General-in-Council but practically it was not possible and if
possible it would be of no use. There were no forum to enquire him at the district level and it was not
possible to hold an inquiry at Calcutta due to the difficulties of bringing witnesses there from the district.
Even if a collector was dismissed from his office it would not bring much relief to the peoples as the new
collector would be having the same power and the same desire to exploit it. There were no safeguard against
the misuse of power. By the passage of time Cornwallis realized that it was very important of the
government to closely monitor the actions of the collector as almost everything was under his control either
directly or indirectly at the district level.

Another defect of this scheme was that it brought judiciary again under the executive by merging both
functions. The intention behind bringing this scheme was to just to make revenue collection effective. The
judicial function was added it just to save the extra expenditure. The collector was even given the finance
work which is nowhere related to the judicial functions. Salaries and accounts were attached to his office.
Collector received allowance and commission for the work done by him as a revenue collector but no
allowance was paid to him for his judicial and magisterial function. His promotion credit and future was
depended on the effectiveness of the work done by him as a revenue collector not as a judge. So, it is
13
obvious he took his work as revenue collector more seriously than of judicial function. As a result it was
found in 1793 that over 30,000 cases were pending in adalats.

More over collector while working as a judge in mal adalat used to hear the cases of oppression and undue
exaction of the revenue which means that collector was judge in his own cause. As mentioned earlier that
collector was much concerned with its revenue collection. Collector for the same reason didn’t take action
against the oppressive acts of the zamindars as they used to contribute to revenue a large amount and it
would affect revenue collection if he took any action against them. So the peoples who were under the
oppression of the zamindars had no confidence on the impartiality of the collector.

Lord Cornwallis thus found the whole system futile and felt that there is need for a change in the system. He
said that the existing system didn’t provide adequate security to the people’s life and property. It would be
advantageous for the company if it takes care of peoples happiness and their satisfaction because this is very
necessary for the longevity and continuance of the government in the country.

Outlines of the Scheme

Lord Cornwallis brought this scheme with the sole motive to put courts as a protector of the rights and
property of individuals against encroachment by government officers. He wanted to provide a system of
administration of justice which may secure rights of every individual and promote general welfare and
prosperity of the country. Main features of this scheme were as followings: -

Separation of Executive and Judiciary

Both of the functions got separated through the II regulation of this scheme. By this regulation collector
remained only with the functions of revenue collection. Mal Adalats were abolished and its cases were
transferred to the mofussil diwani adalat. Civil cases were now placed under the jurisdiction of diwani adalat
and collector now had no relation with this adalat. Revenue cases become triable like ordinary civil cases in
the diwani adalat. Now collector remained only as an administrative officer.

Re-organization of Diwani Adalat

Through Regulation III of the scheme diwani adalat were re-organized so as to make them more efficient,
impartial and independent. A diwani adalat was instituted in each district and in each of three cities of Patna,
Dacca and Murshirabad. Company’s civil servant was appointed to supervise this court. All persons, except
the British, came under the jurisdiction of this court. It was to take up all the civil cases and revenue cases

14
but not criminal cases. All the proceedings used to held in open courts and the judges were not allowed to
correspond with parties in cause pending before them.

Executive under Judicial Control

Section X of regulation III made collectors and executive officers subject to the diwani adalat for their
official acts. If they violate the regulations there were held personally liable and required to pay damages to
the injured party. By this the idea that the officers were above law and could commit oppressive activities
with immunity was totally eradicated. This was one of the greatest steps taken by Lord Cornwallis during his
Governor-Generalship to establish sovereignty and rule of law in India.

Provision of Trial against Government

Lord Cornwallis put government on the same stand as the officials. A suit can be brought against the
government by an individual in the diwani adalat if one felt aggrieved or injured under the regulations. For
the first time such a provision was made to make government liable for its unreasonable acts. This would
ensure the feeling of security amongst individuals for their life and property.

British Under Company’s Adalat

Earlier a case could not be filed against a British in the diwani adalat but a British could file a case against a
native in the local diwani adalat. If a native wanted to bring a suit against a British he had to move to
Supreme Court at Calcutta. It was practically impractical that one left his place, family and occupation and
on great expenses brings a suit against a British. Situation was totally biased and inequitable which generally
resulted in denial of justice. To counter this situation Cornwallis brought a provision. According to this
Diwani Adalat now had the power not to allow British to reside at the distance more than 10 miles from
Calcutta unless they executed a bond rendering themselves amenable themselves to the adalats in all civil
suits against them by Indians involving up to Rs. 500. If a British came to adalat as a plaintiff then he had to
execute a bond declaring himself a subject matter of adalat’s jurisdiction and binding himself by the verdict
of the court. Non-British were on the same stands as were the natives. The flaw here was that it just limited
the claims up to Rs. 500, over this one still had to move Supreme Court.

Provincial Court of Appeal

Till 1793, only Sadar Diwani Adalat used to work as an appellate court which used to hear appeals from the
mofussil diwani adalat. There was no intermediary court to appeal between sadar adalat and mofussil adalat.
People who were dissatisfied with the judgment of mofussil adalat had to move to sadar adalat. It would
prove very expensive and exhausting to the natives. Most of the people for the same reason didn’t go there
15
and had to remain contended with the judgment. Having in mind this situation Lord Cornwallis made a
provision under V regulation of this scheme. Under this provision four courts of appeal were created which
had their seat at Patna, Calcutta, Dacca and Murshirabad. Each court consists of three company’s servant, of
whom two were to make a quorum. These courts were not made to discharge only duty related to hearing of
appeals but it was to discharge multiple functions. It was meant to try civil suits sent to them by the
Government or by Sadar Diwani Adalat. It used to receive original suits which a mofussil adalat refused to
hear. It could further receive charge of corruption against the judges of diwani adalat, to forward them to
sadar adalat. It used to hear appeals from mofussil adalat, filed within three months, without any monetary
limit. This was not the provision earlier. Before 1793 peoples could bring an appeal to the sadar adalat from
mofussil adalat only in the cases having monetary value of Rs. 1000 or more. This provision abolished any
such monetary limit any now any civil case with any monetary value could be entertained by the Provincial
Court of Appeal. One of the paramount feature of this scheme was that it imposed Provincial court as a
supervising authority over the mofussil adalat. Earlier sadar adalat could not monitor the functions of
mofussil adalat as it was situated far from the mofussil adalat and judges of the sadar adalat i.e. Governor-
General and Council remained busy with administrative work rather than exercising monitoring function
over mofussil adalat. This scheme thus, imposed a check on the functions of the mofussil adalat. Appeals
from Provincial court used to go to Sadar adalat with a monetary limit of Rs. 1000 or more.
A further appeal could be made to King-in-Council in cases of value £ 5,000 or more. Sadar Diwani Adalat
was also to work as supervisor over the mofussil adalat and provincial adalat. It could hear the charges of
corruption against the judges of both adalats. It could also request the government to prosecute an accused
person in the Supreme Court.

Decentralization of Civil Justice

Cornwallis noticed that only one mofussil diwani adalat would not suffice to bring adequate justice to all.
Having just one court in the district would increase the pressure of court and vital matters would remain in a
state of delay just because the court had to entertain petty matters on the same preference as the vital
matters. Having this thing in mind Cornwallis made a new provision under XIII regulation. It established a
Registrar’s court to try suits up to Rs. 200 in each district. Registrar’s decisions must have been signed by
the judge of mofussil adalat. Further in each district provision was made under regulation XL for the issue of
commissions to landholders, farmers, and tehsildars appointing them as Munsiffs to try suits up to Rs. 50.
Suits could be instituted directly before the Munsiffs but they didn’t have any authority to execute their own
decree. They had to submit their proceedings to the diwani adalats. Appeals from Munsiffs were first to go
to mofussil adalat and then to provincial adalat. No Munsiffs could be removed from his office before expiry
of his term without sufficient cause proved in the Sadar Diwani Adalat.

Positions of Indians under the Scheme

16
The highest post of Indians to be opted through this scheme was of Munsiffs. Munsiffs were to be elected
from the landholders and land farmers. Here there is a flaw in the scheme. Only zamindars and rich farmers
were to be selected for this post. They were the revenue officer and were holding this judicial function too.
So, at the grass root level there existed an amalgamation of judiciary and revenue collection.
A provision was also there to make respectable Hindus and Muslims as ameens, a post junior to Munsiffs.
An ameen could try a suit up to Rs. 50 but he could only try the cases which were referred to him by the
mofussil adalat. A provision was also there for arbitrators. An arbitrator could decide the cases if both
parties executed an arbitration bond. His decisions could only be enforced by adalat.

Abolishment of Court Fee

Under the new scheme Lord Cornwallis abolished the court fee which used to exist earlier and amounted 2%
- 5% on the cause of action to be paid by plaintiff. Earlier the court fee was justified on the ground that it
discourages litigation and brings only those cases which are of some vital issue. This could not be the case
as there were already a number of cases remained pending in the courts. Cornwallis also denied this
explanation and said that people were not litigious by nature and this fee debarred peoples from recovering
their rights. He also said that the large number of pending case were not due to the litigiousness of the
people but because of the dilatoriness and inefficiency of administration of justice.

Changes in Criminal Judicature

The provisions of 1790 were remained intact in 1793 except a few changes which were introduced. In 1790
collector used to perform the magisterial function. Now this power was taken away from him and transferred
to the judges of mofussil adalats. The magistrates could now punish petty offences by imprisonment up to 15
days or by a fine up to Rs. 100. The Court of Circuits of 1790 and Provincial courts of 1793 were merged to
create four Courts of Appeal and Circuit. Each court consists of three English judges. The court was to
divide itself into two divisions and which were to go on circuits simultaneously. After completing the same
all the judges were to sit to hear the appeals from mofussil diwani adalat.

Changes brought in Legal Profession

Prior to 1793 there were no specific provision for the professional lawyers in the court, nor was it in practice
to have a lawyer while pleading in court. Parties generally either themselves or through there servant used to
plead in court. In some cases parties plead through professional lawyers. Parties pleading themselves or
through their servants had no knowledge of constitution and practice of court. Nor they knew the principles
of Hindu Law and Muslim Law. That is way they could put the best arguments before the court in their
favor and for the same reason they could not get that whether the court proceeded according to law or not.
They used to bring irrelevant witnesses and ask them irrelevant questions which only burdens court’s record.
Those persons who took the services of a professional lawyer were not in a better condition. These lawyers
17
used to be of low moral value, having no better knowledge than their clients. They wouldn’t hesitate in
betraying their clients if other party would bribe them. They generally used to draw the proceedings so as to
gain more and more profit which resulted in hoard of cases in adalats. Therefore a man of character and
education was much needed as lawyer in the courts. Moreover, it was essential in the interest of justice that
arguments for and against a claim were stated to the judge so that he could decide correctly. Regulation VII
of 1793 was enacted to regulate the legal profession. Through this provision Sadar Diwani Adalat was
authorized to appoint pleaders to plead in various adalats by issuing them sunnuds. But it should take utmost
care in issuing sunnuds as a person of good character, liberal educated and versed in the knowledge in the
Hindu and Muslim Law. Each pleader was to take oath to perform his duties faithfully. A fixed tenure was
granted to them before he couldn’t be suspended except in some cases. He could be suspended on the
charges of frauds, misbehavior and incapacity. They were to charge a moderate fee which was decided by
the government. If any lawyer found to be delaying suits of his client for his own advantage then he could be
prosecuted for damages.

Native Law Officers

Native law officers were there in the court for a long period to expound law. This provision was allowed to
be continued in the new scheme. But a few changes were introduced to the existing system to make judicial
administration better.
They were given a tenure security, so that they could discharge their duties more efficiently. Provision was
also made to make them subject to the penalties for their misconduct. In the XII regulation of this scheme it
was enacted that all native law officers belonging to various courts were to be appointed by the Governor-
General-in-Council. Governor-General-in-Council could remove any officer on the charges of incapacity,
misconduct, or any act of open recklessness in their private conduct.

18
 CONCLUSION

It won’t be an overstatement if it is said that Lord Cornwallis’s measures laid the foundation of long run
British Empire in India. He, before bringing changes in system, took his time in identifying the problems.
He sometimes himself criticized his measures and said to bring another change in the system. It seems that
he wanted to create an absolute system in which rule of law prevails and which is far from bribery
corruption and prejudices. His first scheme which came in 1787 was related to judicial as well as revenue
reforms. His first reforms were introduced in two regulations, first is related to the revenue matters while
second is related to the administration of justice. By this scheme he bestowed all the revenue and judicial
functions to the collector. In 1790 he introduced three different types of courts. Court of District Magistrate
for small criminal offences, Circuit Courts to administer justice in the matter presented to it by District
Magistrate and Sadar Nizam Adalat at the above of both these courts. Thus by this scheme he introduced
revolutionary changes in criminal judicature. He removed the shadow of Nawab from criminal matters and
made the company to assume the power of Nawab. His judicial plan of 1793 was an outstanding step in the
development of Indian legal system. Through this plan he not only separated judiciary from executive but
also brought executive under the control of judiciary. Now the administrators were put under the check of
judiciary so as to lessen bribery and corruption in the judicial system. He put reforms in judicial system to
his first priority and others were at subservient. He came to the conclusion that through effective judicial
system so as to satisfy people. If the people were satisfied than they wish for the longevity of the existing
system.
For his contribution in reforming the existing system 1793 he was conferred with the title of Marques and
was also granted seat in Privy Council. He was later also given a place in the Cabinet. 
After his exist for India he was made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in June 1798, after the outbreak of the Irish
Rebellion of 1798 between republican United Irishmen and the British Government. He remained there for
till 1801. He was reappointed governor-general of India in 1805, but on October 5, shortly after arriving,
died of a fever. 

19
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARTICLES :-
1. Article from A WEB OF ENGLISH HISTORY by Marjorie Bloy.
2. Raj, Kapil (2000), "Colonial Encounters and the Forging of New Knowledge and National Identities:
Great Britain and India, 1760–1850", Osiris, 2nd Series 15 (Nature and Empire: Science and the
Colonial Enterprise): 119–134.
3. Judd, Dennis (2004), The Lion and the Tiger: The Rise and Fall of the British Raj, 1600–1947, Oxford and
New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. xiii, 280, ISBN 0192803581.

MONOGRAPHS AND COLLECTIONS :-

4. Bayly, C. A. (2000), Empire and Information: Intelligence Gathering and Social Communication in India,
1780–1870 (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University
Press. Pp. 426, ISBN 0521663601.

WEBSITES REFERRED :-
5. WWW,GOOGLE.COM.
6. WWW.WIKIPEDIA.COM.
7. WWW.INDIANET.COM.
8. www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/india/cornw.html.

20