DR RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

2020-21

HISTORY -III

Title- “Early administration of justice in presidency towns and judicial plans of

1772 and 1774(Adalat system)”

Submitted by Submitted to

HARDIK YADAV DR. Vandana singh

190101059 Assistant professor(History)

B.A. LL.B (HONS.) DR. RMLNLU

3rd semester

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Acknowledgement………………………… 3

Introduction…………………………………. 4

Madras………………………………………… 4

Mayor’s court(1687)…………………….. 5

Administration of Justice in Presidencies…………… 6

Bombay………………………………………. 7

Judicial reform of 1670…...............7

Calcutta……………………………………. .8

Mayor’s court (1726)…..……………..8

Judicial plan of 1772………………..13

Judicial plan of 1774….………………16

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thanks everyone who helped me in making this project work especially in these tough
times ,a special thanks to our professor DR. Vandana singh maam for being a constant support and I
would like to thanks to my friends , fellow batchmates, library staff and seniors for their guidance.

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION

The early settlements of the company in India had very poor administrative set up and till 1726, the
judicial system therein was even poorer. However, in course of time, for the administration of their
factories and settlements, as of necessity, some legal and judicial system had to be developed. But
the growth of justice system in each of the three presidency towns followed altogether different
course and there was no uniformity whatsoever in its growth among these centers. The Englishmen,
realizing the importance of having a sound judicial system in the territories falling under their sway,
started the task of evolving a judicial system from the beginning of their administrative career. The
proper study of their judicial institutions from the days of the East India Company would reveal the
problems and the pitfalls which the administrators had to face in the past and the measures of
correction which they took to develop the judiciary. We shall look into Madras in three phases as
described below.

MADRAS
It was developed in three stages.
They are:
Stage I: 1639 - 1678
Stage II:   1678 - 1683
Stage III:  1683 - 1726

1639 - 1678:
In 1639, an Englishman, Francis Day acquired a piece of land from Hindu Raja of Chandragiri, for the
East India Company. It was known as Madraspatnam.  The company constructed a factory on this
land called FORT ST. GEORGE in 1640.  This Fort was known as WHITE TOWN.  While the nearby
villages inhabited by local population was called BLACK TOWN.

Agent And Council:

It has its presence only in the white town, the agent and council were authorised to decide both civil
and criminal cases of English people residing at Fort St. George. The judicial system was vague and
almost in every case the council referred the cases to England.

Choultry Court:
The primitive and native Choultry Court functioned there.  This court was presided with a native
judicial officer called ADIKARI.  It has not tried serious offences like murder but tried other cases
only.

4|Page
Governor And Council:
By the Charter of 1661, the company was empowered to appoint Governor and Council to decide
civil and criminal cases of all persons of the company. English common law was followed.

1678 - 1683:
High Court of Judicature:
The Governor reorganised the whole judicial system in 1678.  They sat twice a week and tried civil
and criminal cases with the help of 12 juries.  They tried appeals from the Choultry Court.

Choultry Court:
Old Choultry Court was reconstituted. The Adikari was replaced by three English Officers.  They sat
twice a week and tried all civil cases up to the value of 50 pagodas. Their decision was appealable to
the GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL.

1683 -1726:
Admiralty Court:
This court was established in Madras in 1686 by the Charter of 1683 headed by JUDGE ADVOCATE.  It
consisted of one person learned in civil law and two merchants appointed by the company.  The
court decided,all cases of mercantile or maritime nature, trespass, injuries and wrongs committed on
high seas, forfeiture and seizure of ships or goods.
This court applied the rules of equity, good conscience and the laws and customs of merchants.
This court becomes the general court of the city for all practical purposes in setting all civil and
criminal cases.  This court functioned till 1704.

Mayors's Court:
The company’s Charter of 1687 established a Mayors Court at Madras.  It consisted of a Mayor,
twelve Aldermen and sixty or more Burgesses.  The first Mayor and Aldermen were nominated by
the Charter.  The Mayor holds office for one year.  Aldermen elected the Mayor annually.  The
Mayor and Aldermen selected Burgesses whose strength was not to exceed 120.  The Mayor and
three Aldermen were to be English servants of the company and others were to be from any nation.

A man learned law called Recorder was attacked to Mayors Court  (Court of reward). The Mayor
court tried,
All civil cases up to the value of 3 pagodas
All criminal cases with the help of jury and punished the offenders by fine or imprisonment.

Appeals were allowed to the Admiralty Court. In civil matters, the Admiralty Court had decided more
than the value of 3 pagodas.  In criminal cases, it had decided when the punishment was to lose life
or limbs.
Appeals from the Mayors Court and Admiralty Court were heard by Governor and Council.

The Charter of 1726 established Mayors Court at Madras, Bombay and Calcutta consisted of a Mayor
and 9 Aldermen.  Mayor and 7 Aldermen were to be English and the rest were subjects of princely
Indian States friendly with Britain.  The Mayor holds office for one year.  The Aldermen hold office

5|Page
for lifelong.  Every year the outgoing Mayor and Aldermen elected a new Mayor out of the
Aldermen.  The Mayor and Aldermen filled up the vacancy of Aldermen from among the inhabitants
of the Presidency Town.  The Governor in Council could dismiss the Aldermen on reasonable ground.

This court tried only civil matters.  It granted probation of wills and letters of administration in case
of intestate.  During the proceedings the parties were required to take oath produce and examine
witnesses and plead their cases.

Sheriff was appointed by Governor and Council.  It is his duty to produce the defendant in the court
if a written complaint was filed by an aggrieved party.  He executed judgments as in English Law.
Governor in Council heard appeals from the Mayors Courts up to the value of 1000 pagodas.

Privy Council:
If the value of the suit was more than 1000 pagodas a second appeal was permitted to this court.

Administration of Justice in Presidencies:

Justice of Peace:
The Governor and 5 senior members of the Council would have criminal jurisdiction and would be
justice of peace.

Some cases finalized in these courts:

Arab Merchant’s Case:
An Arab Merchant brought a suit in the Mayor’s Court for the recovery of the valuable pearls which
were alleged to have been escorted from him by a man who saved him from the burning boat at the
coast of Gujarat.  The Mayor’s Court consulted the Governor in Council.  The Governor upheld the
jurisdiction of the Mayor’s Court.  It suggested the Mayor’s Court not to try the case as the
defendant had been previously hired for piracy regarding the same occurrence and acquitted.

The Mayor’s Court ignored this and decreed the suit.  This was reversed by the Governor.

Hindu Woman’s Case: (1730)

A 12 year old boy (Hindu) left his mother and began to live with his relatives, since his mother
became Roman Catholic in Bombay.  The mother filed a suit for the custody of the boy in the
Mayor’s Court.  The Court ordered the relatives to hand over the boy to his mother.  On a complaint
filed by the head of the caste, the Governor in Council held that the Mayor’s Court had no power to
decide cases of religious nature or caste disputes of the natives.  The Governor removed the Mayor
from his office.

Pagoda Oath Case:

In Madras, Hindus gave evidence in the Court on Bhagwad Geetha Oath.  Two Hindu Merchants
were put to jail by the Mayor’s Court for refusing to take the pagoda oath which they said was
contrary to their religion and the rules of the castle.  This made the Hindu Residents very furious and
they approach the Governor to interfere.  So Governor released those merchant on parole.  At the
same time the Court was directed to pay regard to the religious rites and ceremonies of the natives.

Re-electing as Mayor Case:

In 1734, a conflict arose over the Mayor’s re-election.  Naish was re-elected as Mayor but the
Governor refused to allow him to take the Oath of Office on the ground that an outgoing Mayor

6|Page
could not be re-elected under the Charter of 1726.  Ultimately another Mayor was to be elected.

Mayor and Secretary Betting Case:

Terrain the Secretary to the Madras Government and Mayor Naish met at a dinner party and
entered into a bet which Naish lost and refused to pay.  Terrain sued him in the Mayor’s Court which
ruled that Mayor was immune from prosecution.  The Government later complained that its
secretary had been treated with indignity by the Court.

Bombay:
It was under the control of the Portuguese from 1534 onwards.  Portuguese King gave it as a dowry
to Charles II of England when he married the formers sister in 1661.  King leased it to the company.
The Judicial Administration developed in three stages.  They are:
Stage I:  1668 - 1683
Stage II:   1684 - 1690
Stage III:  1718 - 1726

1668 -1683:
Judicial Reforms of 1670:
Gerald Aungier reorganised the old judicial setup of Bombay and all laws were classified into six
sections.  They are:
related to the freedom of worship and religious believes
impartial administration of justice
establishment of a court of Judicature to decide all criminal cases and for the appointment of justice
of peace and order, to arrest criminals
registration of transactions concerning sale of land and houses
contained miscellaneous provisions dealt with penalties for different crimes
military discipline and prevention of disorder and revolt. Bombay was divided into two divisions.
 Each division had a court of five Judges.  The customs officer of each division, an Englishman
presided this court.

Quorum of this Court: Three Judges

They sat once a week and tried petty civil and criminal cases up to the value of two xerophins (A
Portuguese coin equal to nearly Rs. 7.50).

New Judicial Plan of 1672:

All cases were tried according to English Law.
Central Court of Judicature was established and presided by a single Judge who sat once a week and
tried all civil, criminal and testamentary cases.
Justice of Peace in Bombay was divided into four divisions.  Each headed by an Englishman called
Justice of Peace.
He acted as committing magistrate, recorded the necessary proceedings and sent the accused to the
Court of Judicature for trial.
The appellate authority was Deputy Governor and Council.

Court of Conscience was established.  It sat once a week.  It decided petty cases summarily without
charging fees from the litigants.

1684 -1690:

7|Page
Admiralty Court was established which was similar to that of Madras.

1718 - 1726:
Court of Judicature:
It consisted of a Chief Justice and nine Judges.  The Chief Justice and five Judges were to be English.
Others were to be of any other nation.  The quorum was three English Judges.  This court sat once a
week and tried all civil, criminal, testamentary cases as per law, equity, good conscience and rules
and ordinance of the company from time to time.
Appeal was heard by the Governor and Council.
Calcutta:
In 1690, the English Merchants founded a settlement at Sutanati, a site where future Calcutta
developed.  In 1698, they secured Zamindari rights over Sutanati, Calcutta and Gobindpur.  The
company established Fort William at Calcutta in 1700.  Calcutta became a Presidency with the
Governor and Council to manage its affairs.  A member of the Council was appointed as Collector to
act as Zamindar on behalf of the company in 1700.

Faujdari Court:
The Collector decided criminal cases of the natives of three villages Sutanati, Gobindpur and
Calcutta.  The criminals were punished by whipping, imposing fines, imprisonment, banishment or
work on roads.  Capital punishment was given only after confirmation by the Governor in Council.

Justice administered by Local Zamindars:

Each Zamindar (Collectors) held a cutcherry or Adalat and decided all civil cases according to the
customs of the country.  Appeals from this Court lay to the Nawab’s Court at Murshidabad.  Death
sentences had to be confirmed by the Nawab who is a native governor during the time of the
Mughal empire.

THE MAYOR’S COURT

Mayor court was established under charter 1687 and 1726 both have different aspects. The charter
of 1600 permitted constrained administrative power on the organisation to makes laws, statute and
so forth.. These laws were to be sensible and ought not be opposite or disgusting to the laws,
statutes or traditions of England. The organisation was permitted to attempt devotion cases and
could force fines and detainment.. The organisation had no energy to manage capital offences and
to grant capital disciplines (capital punishment and life detainment).The organisation was denied
with forces to control capital offences like murder, revolt and so on. On higher courts in charter 1726
granted the Judicial force to the organisation to make laws, to rebuff workers and so on with the
goal that the working of organisation does not stop and friends does not confront misfortunes .To
keep up train among its workers, the Crown issued Royal Commission to execute military law. Under
1726 it is applied all presidency towns and only civil jurisdiction is applicable. The pace of the
advancement of the organization of equity in British India might be isolated into following four
periods: a. Early Administration of Justice until the Charter of 1726; b. Organisation of Justice from
the Charter of 1726 till the Regulating Act of 1773; c. Organisation of Justice from the Regulating Act
of 1773 till the time of Unification in 1861; and d. From 1861 till the Independence in 1947.

8|Page
COMMON ADMINISTRATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF MAYOR'S COURT INPRESIDENCY TOWNS:
The Mayor and nine Aldermen of every Corporation framed a Court of Record which was known as
the 'Leader's Court'. It was enabled to choose all the common cases inside the Presidency town and
the industrial facilities subordinate there to. The Mayor together with two other English Aldermen
framed the majority. The Court likewise practiced testamentary ward. It could allow probates of will
and Letters of Administration if there should be an occurrence of intestacy. The Court was to hold its
sitting not in excess of three times each week. An interest from the choice of the Mayor's Court lay
to the Governor and Council. Be that as it may, in cases including the estimation of-topic over 1,000
pagodas, a further interest lay to the King-in-Council. Being a Court of Record, the Mayor's Court
could rebuff people for its disdain. The procedure of the Court was to be executed by the Sheriffs,
the lesser individuals from the court who were at first assigned however therefore picked yearly by
the Governor and Council. There was no particular say in the Charter of 1726 with regards to the law
which was to be appropriate in the Mayor's Court yet since the prior Charter of 1661 gave that
equity was to be managed asper the English law, it was assumed that a similar law was to be trailed
by the Mayor's Court in choosing the cases. Common and Criminal locale—The Mayor and Aldermen
constituted a common court, while the Mayor and three senior Aldermen were Justices of Peace
having criminal purview. The Mayor and two Aldermen shaped the majority. The Court held its
sitting just once in a fortnight and chose criminal cases with the assistance of jury. The Court could
grant the sentence of detainment or fine. Offers from the choices of the Mayor's Court lay to the
Admiralty Court in facilitate the estimation of the common case surpassed three pagodas, and in
criminal cases, where the guilty party was condemned to death or loss of appendage.

Court of Record—The Mayor's court constituted a Court of Records since a Recorder was
additionally appended to the Court. As every one of the individuals from the Mayor's Court were lay
people without mastery In law. it administered equity "in a synopsis way as indicated by value,
equity and great still, small voice" and law authorised by the Company. Clearly, this will undoubtedly
come about into vulnerability and absence of consistency in laws. To provide the administrations of
a man having legitimate information, the Company designated Sir John Biggs, the Judge-Advocate of
the Admiralty Court, as the Recorder of Mayor's Court in 1688. This arrangement of Sir John Biggs as
a Recorder of the Mayor's court made an inconsistency in light of the fact that as a Judge-Advocate
of the Admiralty Court, he additionally heard interests from the Mayor's Court, with which he was
related as a Judge. Be that as it may, this oddity did not keep going since a long time ago Sir John
Biggs kicked the bucket in 1689, and from that point, the Company did not select any Recorder in the
Mayor's Court.

MAYOR’S COURT IN 1687 and 1726 :

Before 1726 there were diverse legal frameworks working in the British Settlement, which were
expanded in number by 1726. Therefore the hirelings of the many, working at such unique
settlements were liable to various arrangements of courts. There was, hence an absence of
consistency in the British settlements, for a similar offence which involve unique and once in a while
Contrary Penal Consequence. There was additionally another factor which constrained the Company
to have a uniform law. There were very vital recognising highlight between the Company's Mayer's

9|Page
Court and the Crown's Mayor's Courts built up under the Charter of 126. The principle contrasts are
given underneath,

(1) The Mayor's Court under the Charter of 1687 was made by the Company while the Mayor's
Courts under the Charter of 1726 drew their energy straightforwardly from the Crown. Along these
lines the last were on a predominant balance than the previous

(2) The Charter of 1687 made just a single Mayor's Court at Madras, it didn't contact the legal
Framework winning in different settlements, administrations under the Company. The Charter
of1726 made Mayor' Courts at all the three administrations that is Madras, Calcutta and Bombay
consequently, out of the blue, building up a uniform legal framework.

(3) The Mayor's Court built up under the Charter of 1687 appreciated both common and criminal
ward. While the chairman's courts set up under the Charter of 1726 leader's Courts setup under the
Charter of ( were given ward in common issues including testamentary and probate of wills locale,
Criminal issues were left to be chosen by am inside the purview of, Governor-in-Council which went
about as a court I such issues.

(4) The Charter of 1726 made, out of the blue, an arrangement for a moment request to the King-in-
Council which turned into a forerunner of the Privy Council later on. Therefore under this Charter,
the main interest could be recorded before the Governor-in-Council and the second(despite the fact
that now and again) offer could be taken to the King-in-Council in England. The Charter of 1687 did
not make such arrangement. The interest from the Mayor's court could be documented under the
steady gaze of the Admiralty Court.

(5) The Mayor's Court built up under the Charter of 1687 made an arrangement for the portrayal of
the locals on the court. The Crown's Mayors Courts did not have any such portrayal, however there
was an arrangement I for the same in the Charter of 1726.

(6) No uncertainty, the Crown's Mayor's Courts set up under the contract of 1726 were
Unquestionably unrivalled courts so far as their status is concerned, yet in strict legal and legitimate
way, the Company's Mayor's Court was better prepared, for there was an arrangement for a legal
counselor part who was to be known as the Recorder. The Charter of 1726 despite the fact that it
implied to enhance the legal framework in India, did not make any such arrangement. . Hence the
Courts set up in 1726 were for the most part made out of Company's government workers who did
not have adequate involvement in lawful issues.

(7) There was yet another imperative qualification between the two Mayor's Courts. The Company's
Mayor Court developed its own method and apportioned equity as per the standards of presence of
mind, value and great inner voice. It dodged the complicated procedural details. Yet, the Charter of
1726 which brought the British laws into India brought all the legitimate details of the British Courts

10 | P a g e
of law. In this manner the whole extent of British laws and its strategy were foisted on the Courts
built up under the Charter of 1726.

(8) The Charter of 1726, as it were, got rid of the idea of partition between the official and the legal
in criminal issues. The Governor-in-Council went about as the criminal court while the Mayor's
Courts taken care of just the common issues and testamentary and probate of wills cases. Then
again, the Mayor's Court at Madras was contributed with energy to deal with all polite and criminal
issues and bids from its choices went to the Admiralty Court instead of theGovernor-in-Council. The
Charter of 1726 likewise constituted a Mayor's Court for every one of the administration towns
comprising of a Mayor and nine Aldermen. Three of them i.e., the Mayor or senior Alderman
together with two other Aldermen were required to be available to frame the majority of the Court.
The Mayor's Courts were proclaimed to be available to fan the majority of the Court. The Mayor's
Courts were announced to be Courts of record and were approved to attempt, hear and decide
every single common activity and supplications amongst gathering and gathering. The Court was
likewise allowed testamentary locale id energy to issue letters of organization to the legitimate
beneficiary of the expired individual. It was approved to practice its purview over all people living in
the administration possess and working in the Company's subordinate production lines. Advances
from choices of Mayor's Court were documented in the Court of Governor and Council. A moment
claim in cases including 1000 pagodas or more could be made to lord in chamber in England. The
court of Governor and Council additionally chose criminal cases.

Some of the defects of the Mayor’s Court.

The criminal equity was completely official ruled as it was on account of the Governor-in-Council.
The Mayor's courts were not free from the official impact. The council members were either
Company's workers or other English dealers who relied on the Company's authorisation to remain in
India and were helpless before the nearby government. At the end of the day, the Governor and
Council were the producer and unmakes of the judges. .Judges were non-experts. The Company had
a strategy of restricting organisation of equity to its workers and consequently it abstained from
delegating legal advisors. The Mayor's court was constituted to work autonomously. Be that as it
may, its association with the official was not expressed unmistakably and there rose a miserable
conflict between the official and the legal. This conflict is obvious from some imperative cases like
Shrimpy's case, Arab Merchant's case, Pagoda Oath case and so forth.

JUDICIAL PLAN OF 1772:

Under the prevailing circumstances mentioned above, Warren Hastings went on to introduce a
scheme of judicial administration in 1772 along side a system of revenue administration which went
on to lay foundation of Adalat system in India.

11 | P a g e
Under this plan the territory of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa was divided into multiple districts and in
each district, an English servant of company was appointed as the collector who was to be
responsible for collection of revenue alongside having judicial powers.

Different courts in Adalat System: (in order of the hierarchy)

1. Small Cause Courts

These courts were present in each of the village or pergunnah and used to deal with small or petty
cases. Decisions of these courts used to be binding up to the value of Rs 10. these courts were
headed by either the village headman or the head farmer of the respective pergunnah.

2. Mofussil or district courts:

 Mofussil Diwani Adalat-  these courts used to be present in each district and had jurisdiction
over the revenue and civil cases including the disputes related to marriages, inheritance,
castes, debts, contracts, disputed accounts, personal properties, partnership and demand on
rent. It used to have pecuniary jurisdiction of up to Rs 500 such that decisions of this court
up to this amount was final. Collector of the district use to act as the judge of this court who
use to work in assistance with the native law officers such as the Kazis and Pundits. These
law officers used to assist the judge as the collector did not has the knowledge about the
personal laws of the Hindus and the Muslims which was to be applied to different disputes
which were presented before the court.

 Mofussil Nizamat Adalat-  these courts were also known as Fauzdari Adalats. These courts
were also present in each district but unlike the mofussil Diwani Adalat, it used to deal only
with the criminal cases. Further, it was not empowered to try cases involving death
sentences or cases demanding forfeiture of property of the accused as such cases were to be
submitted to Sadar Diwani Adalat for final orders. These courts were presided over by the
Muslim law officers only. The Moulvi used to expound the law, while the Kazi and the Mufti
used to give Fatwa and render the judgment accordingly. But alongside these officers of law,
collectors also used to have an important role in these courts which was that of a supervisor.
He used to see that all the necessary witnesses were heard, that the  cases were tried
regularly and that the judgments were impartial.

3. Sadar or Provincial courts:

 Sadar Diwani Adalat–  this was the apex court for civil cases in the province. It used to have
both the appellate as well as original jurisdiction as it not only used to hear appeals from
Mofussil Diwani Adalat but also used to take up cases which involving dispute of over Rs
500. It used to charge five percent of the amount of dispute on each petition or appeal. It
was presided over by the governor and his council, and was located in the presidency town
of Calcutta. Its first sitting took place on 17th March, 1773.

 Sadar Nizamat Adalat–  this was the apex court for criminal cases in the province. Similar to
Sadar Diwani Adalat, it also used to have both original as well as appellate jurisdiction. As
mentioned above, it used to have specific jurisdiction to decide over matter of death
sentence and forfeiture of property. In cases of death sentence, the death warrant was
prepared by this Adalat and was to be signed by the Nawab as the head of the Nizamat. This
court was presided over by Daroga-I-Adalat who used to act as the judge of this court. He
was assisted by a Chief Kazi, a Chief Mufti and three Moulvies. Similar to Mofussil Nizamat
Adalat, there used to be a supervisory authority in the form of Governor-in-Council who

12 | P a g e
 used to keep a check over the functioning of this court. It was earlier located in Calcutta but
was later shifted to Murshidabad, where the Nawab resided, in order to reduce the effort
which used to be there to get his signature in cases of death sentences. Another
development which was seen later was the development of the office of Naib Nazim in
which Mohd. Reza Khan was appointed, who was to work and give assent on behalf of
Nawab.

Figure 1: Adalat System (lines depict the direction of Appeal)

Miscellaneous provisions under the plan to promote impartial justice:

All cases were to be  heard in open courts such that anyone was able to observe them. This ensured
that the transparency was maintained and also helped in maintaining the trust of people in the
judicial authority. Apart from this, all Adalats at the district level or lower level were to maintain
records in the form of register of cases heard and decided such that the same were to be sent the
Sadar Adalats. This was a major step which could have helped in curbing the misuse of power by the
judges as they were under constant check of the apex courts and misdeed on their part could have
come to light.

Introduction of new civil and criminal procedures and laws:

In case of civil procedure, a rough and ready procedure for hearing of civil cases was adopted under
which, after the plaintiff had filed a petition of complaint, the defendant was to give answers (reply)
after which the Adalat was to hear the parties viva voce and if necessary, evidence was to be
examined. It was only after all this, a decree was passed by the court. Moreover, there was
introduction of a new limitation period which was to be 12 years from the date of dispute such that
any case being filed after that period would have been considered time barred. This provision can

13 | P a g e
still be seen in our procedural codes. Further, a system of arbitration was also introduced to assist
the functions of the civil  court.

In the case of criminal procedure and laws, focus was shifted towards introduction procedure and
laws in order to prohibit dacoity and restrict the mutilation as a form of punishment. Dacoity was
very rampant in the country and to reduce the same strict laws were made. Under these laws, a
dacoit was to be executed on the conviction such that village shall be fined and the family member
of the dacoit would be made slaves of the state. Mutilation was disliked by Warren Hastings as he
believed that a criminal getting mutilated as punishment, instead of improving him as a person
rather made him a permanent burden of the society. However these anti mutilation laws remained
just in text but were not enforced in reality owing to the resistance which would have been shown
by the Muslim law officers who were reluctant to deviate from the texts of the Muslim law.

An appraisal of the plan:

The plan of 1772 was appraised for its efficiency which was a creditable achievement for Warren
Hastings, given the limitations of the available resources. Sir John William Kaye, had rightfully called
him “the Infant Administrator” because keeping in mind the fact that company was still in its initial
stage, it was big achievement for the governor of Bengal to implement such a system. This system
was praised for being impartial and inexpensive along with being easily accessible to the public who
did not have to travel to provincial courts thus saving their time and money. The old system of
commission which was exacted by the judges from the parties was now replaced by a court fees
which was to go government thus adding to revenue of the government while at the same time
minimizing the bribe culture. With the beginning of the Adalat system the judicial powers of the
Zamindars were also abolished thus putting an end to oppression of the farmers.

Defects of the 1772 Plan

1. Insufficient number of courts at village level (small causes courts)-

There were very less number of small causes court present in the village areas and even the courts
which were there had pecuniary jurisdiction of upto Rs. 10 only which was too small in amount in
many cases. Thus, a dispute of slightly greater amount had to be referred to district courts which
again used to be expensive and time consuming for people living in these areas which was in great
number as the means of travel was not adequate.

2. Concentration of too much power in the hands of collector

Too much power was concentrated in the hands of the collector in the district as they used to be the
administrator, tax collector, civil judge and supervisor of criminal judicature which led to following
issues:-

i) Party to the revenue cases- Since he was the civil judge along the tax collector, he used to be party
to the dispute and thus it was against the principle of justice.

ii) Carrying their private trade- The collector also started carrying their own private trade as they
were able to monopolise their trade through their powers for their own benefits even if it was to the
detriment of people.

iii) Difficulty in supervision of collectors- It was difficult for Calcutta council to supervise and keep
check on the collectors as they used to be preoccupied in their own work and also because the
means of communication was poor

14 | P a g e
JUDICIAL PLAN OF 1774

The defects of Plan of 1772 was apprehended not only by Warren Hastings but also by the company
director who asked the governor and council to withdraw the collectors and search for an alternate
arrangements and thus the Calcutta government went on to implement the new plan for collection
of revenue and administration of justice on November 23, 1773, and put it in force in January, 1774.

Features of Plan of 1774-

1. Appointment of Amils/Diwans

The collectors were replaced by the Amils or Diwans who were appointed in each district. He was to
act as revenue collector as well as judge of Mofussil Diwani Adalat.

2. Divisions

The territory of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa was divided into six divisions headquartered at Calcutta,
Murshidabad, Dinajpur, Dacca and Patna such that each division used to have several districts under
its command. For example- Patna division had the whole of bihar under it.

3. Provincial Councils

A Provincial Council consisting of 4-5 covenanted servants of the company was created in each
divisions which had the following functions:-

i)  Supervision of revenue collection– They were to supervise the collection of revenue by the Amils.

ii) Hear appeals from Mofussil Diwani Adalat– They used to hear appeals from Mofussil Diwani
Adalat such that an appeal lie to Sadar Diwani Adalat if the dispute involved matter above Rs. 1000
in value.

Thus, it became link between Mofussil Diwani Adalat and Sadar Diwani Adalat and all cases
irrespective of value were appealable in the Provincial Council.

iii) Court of first instance– It also had an original jurisdiction and used to act as court of first instance
in the divisions where they were located such that cases arising in the division town(headquarters)
could be directly referred to these courts.

It proved to be beneficial as an appeal system was created close to district adalats and thus
supervision of the working of district judges was possible which was not in the previous case of
governor and council.

Defects of the 1774 Plan

Just like the collectors, the members of the provincial council were also potentially mischievous and
could have monopolised the trade within their jurisdiction. However, they were more distrustful in
comparison to collectors because the collectors used to be junior servants and could have been
controlled by the governor and council but these members used to the the senior members of the
company having a status equal to that of any member of the council and thus the governor and
council could not control their actions because of their pull and influence. Thus, people putting
themselves at the mercy of the Provincial Council would not dare to raise their voices against their
unjust treatment.

The system was said to be ahead of its time. Every minor deficiency was attempted to be rectified by
the governor general of Bengal. The system so created was also assisted by the Regulating Act of

15 | P a g e
1773 which led to the creation of supreme court with an aim to separate the judicial administration
from the revenue administration as both were very much connected since the same officers often
use to have both the duties of revue collection and adjudication but still it was not achieved as per
the expectations and thus an another attempt was made to eliminate the deficiency   in the form of
reorganisation of the adalat system in 1780 which observed the official separation of the revenue
and judicial administration. The Provincial Councils which were tasked with both revenue collection
and imparting of justice were now limited to collection of revenue and handling of the revenue cases
while all the judicial function handed back to diwan adalats which were established in each of the
Provincial Councils as well that is, Calcutta, Murshidabad, Dacca, Burdwan, Dinapur and Patna.

Even after this reform, the adalat system was not able to achieve the perfection so desired by
Hastings but the existence of such a system of judicial administration in itself was praiseworthy. This
system further led to the system of courts which exist even today.

16 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY

M.P Jain - outlines of Indian legal and constitutional history

Wikipedia.org

Historydiscussion.net

Legalbites.in

Unacademy.in

17 | P a g e