THE CHARTER ACT OF

1726

MAYOR’S COURT
 REASONS FOR THE CHARTER 1726
 Want of a proper and competent power and authority for more speedy and
effectual administration of Justice in civil cases, and for the trying and
punishing of capital and other criminal offences.
 Lack of jurisdiction with the then existing courts to grant probates and
letters of administration in cases where the executors of the deceased or
his legal representatives if he died without a will , were not in the British
settlements in India. In such cases the Council took possession of the
deceased servant and sold them by public auction and deposited the
proceeds in the Company's treasury. But this arrangement sometimes gave
rise to troublesome suits against the Company which the company not
only had to defend but also had to pay compensation.
 Last but a weak reason for bringing the Charter was the absence of a
proper authority to deal with the indiscipline and the serious crimes
committed by the Military personnel. A court was needed to punish all
such acts effectively.
 PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER

 The Charter of 1726 issued by King George I on 24th September.

 The charter established civil and criminal courts in the presidency
towns which derived their authority not from the company but from
the British crown.
 The advantage of having royal courts in India was that their
decisions were as authoritative as those of the courts in England.
 The charter initiated the system of appeals from the courts in India
to the Privy Council in England.
 Thus, the English law was brought in to India. Principles of English
law was brought to decide the disputes.
 The charter also established a local legislature in each presidency
town.
 The Charter of 1726 constitutes a landmark in the Indian Legal
history.
 But justice continued to be administered by non professional
judges, no separation of power between the executive and the
judiciary.
 Position of courts before 1726 and after. The decision of the
Mayors court commanded respect in England as it was created by
the Crown. It was not so in case of earlier court which was
created by the company.
 All the three presidency was to have a corporation comprising of
one mayor and 9 alderman.
 Out of the 9 alderman, two could be a subject of any prince or state
having good relation with the Great Britain. Rest were to be British
natural born subjects.
 Mayor was appointed for 1 year and after the expiry of term had to
continue as an alderman.
 Alderman was appointed for life and in case of any vacancy the
mayor and the remaining alderman would elect new alderman from
inhabitants of the town.
 New mayor was to be elected by outgoing mayor and the
alderman.
 An alderman could be removed on some reasonable ground by the
governor and council subject to an appeal to King in council.
 Thus, the attempt was to make the corporation autonomous, free
from the control of the executive.
 JUDICIAL STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION IN EACH
PRESIDENCY(CIVIL JURISDICTION)

 The mayor and the aldermen were to constitute the mayor's court.
 The quorum of the court was to be three-the mayor or senior alderman with two other aldermen.
 The court was to hear and try all civil suits arising within the town and its subordinate factories.
 The first appeal within 14 days would go to governor and council. From where, further appeal lay
with the King in council in all matters involving 1000 pagodas or more( then currency of Madras)
 Thus for the first time a right of appeal to the king-in-council from the decisions of the courts in
India was granted.
 It was a court of record and had power to punish for contempt. Had testamentary jurisdiction,
could grant probates of wills of the deceased persons.
 A sheriff was chosen annually by governor and council and functioned as police.
 The form of procedure in civil action was interesting. Court might issue warrant, bail might be
allowed, defendant could be detained in custody, he could be imprisoned till the judgement was
satisfied, property could be seized and sold.
 CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
 Criminal Justice vested in the governor and five senior member of the council.
 They were known as justices of peace.
 Arrest persons and punish.
 Three justices of the peace were to collectively form a court of record.
 Session was held four times a year to try and punish criminal offence except
high treason.

 Trials were held with the help of grand jury and petty jury.
 All technical forms and procedures of the English criminal justice system was
introduced.
 IMPORTANT POINTS

 Separation of power between the executive and

judiciary was partially followed.
 Executive enjoyed a large share in the administration
of justice as a criminal court and appellate court from
the mayor's court.
 Aldermen were either company's servants or other
English traders.
 Justice administered by non professional judges.
 WORKING OF THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM:1726-1754

 Volume of litigation increased in each presidency town.

 Hostility and conflict between the government and mayors court.
 Too much interference by the government.
 Disagreed on the caste and religious matters of the natives. Govt. warned the
court not to interfere in such matters.
 Dispute on the question of form of oath. Hindus to be sworn upon the cow
instead of the Geeta.
 The governor and council usually reversed the decision of the court.
 Working of the mayor's court also generated resentment amongst the Indians.
The govt. usually sided with them.
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMPANY'S MAYOR'S
COURT AND THE CROWN'S MAYOR'S COURTS

 There were quite important distinguishing feature between the Company's

Mayor's Court and the Crown's Mayor's Courts established under the Charter of
1726. The main differences are given below,

 (1) The Mayor's Court under the Charter of 1687 was created by the Company
while the Mayor's Courts under the Charter of 1726 drew their power directly
from the Crown. Thus the latter were on a superior footing than the former
 (2) The Charter of 1687 created only one Mayor's Court at Madras, it did not
touch the judicial system prevailing in other settlements, presidencies under the
Company. The Charter of 1726 created Mayor’ Courts at all the three
presidencies that is Madras, Calcutta and Bombay thus, for the first time,
establishing a uniform judicial system.
 (3) The Mayor's Court established under the Charter of 1687 enjoyed both civil and
criminal jurisdiction. While the mayor's courts established under the Charter of
1726 were given jurisdiction in civil matters including testamentary and probate of
wills jurisdiction, Criminal matters were left to be decided by Governor-in-Council
which acted as a court in such matters.
 (4) The Charter of 1726 made, for the first time, a provisions for a second appeal to
the King-in-Council which became a precursor of the Privy Council later on. Thus
under this Charter, the first appeal could be filed before the Governor-in-Council
and the second (although in some cases) appeal could be taken to the King-in-
Council in England. The Charter of 1687 did not make such provision. The appeal
from the Mayor's court could be filed before the Admiralty Court.
 (5) The Mayor's Court established under the Charter of 1687 made a provision for
the representation of the natives on the court. The Crown's Mayors Courts did not
have any such representation, though there was a provision I for the same in the
Charter of 1726.
 (6) No doubt, the Crown's Mayor's Courts established under the charter of 1726 were
definitely superior courts so far as their status is concerned, but in strict judicial and
legal manner, the Company's Mayor's Court was better equipped, for there was a
provision for a lawyer-member who was to be called the Recorder. The Charter of
1726 although it purported to improve the judicial system in India, did not make any
such provision. Thus the Courts established in 1726 were mostly composed of
Company's civil servants who did not have sufficient experience in legal matters.
 (7) There was yet another important distinction between the two Mayor's Courts. The
Company's Mayor Court evolved its own procedure and dispensed justice in
accordance with the rules of common sense, equity and good conscience. It avoided
the intricate procedural technicalities. But the Charter of 1726 which introduced the
British laws into India brought all the legal technicalities of the British Courts of law.
Thus the entire gamut of British laws and its procedure were foisted on the Courts
established under the Charter of 1726.
 (8) The Charter of 1726, in a way, did away with the concept of separation between
the executive and the judiciary in criminal matters. The Governor-in-Council acted as
the criminal court while the Mayor's Courts handled only the civil matters and
testamentary and probate of wills cases. On the other hand, the Mayor's Court at
Madras was invested with power to handle all civil and criminal matters and appeals
from its decisions went to the Admiralty Court rather than the Governor-in-Council.