Mayor’s Court – 1726

Introduction:
The Mayor’s Court was established in India in by The Charter of
1726 at Madras, Calcutta and Bombay which were East India
Company’s Highest Courts in British India. The East India Company
till 1726 had no power to manage Capital Offences and Capital
Punishments, to all the Presidencies with only Civil Jurisdiction being
applicable. The Charter was issued by King George on Twenty Fourth
September (1726) to the Company. Mayors Court was specially
empowered to hear cases against The Company.
The requirement of Establishing Mayor’s Court:
 The need for establishing a Mayor’s Court was felt as before 1726
different judicial systems were working in British India.
 Since there were different Judicial Systems the servants of The
East India Company at different settlements were governed by a
different set of rules.
 Thus, there was a lack of uniformity in The Justice System and the
same offence would carry a different punishment at different
settlements.
 There was an absence of a Competent Court in India which could
Supersede all the other courts.
Features of the Charter:
 It established a local Court in each of The Presidency Towns at
Madras, Calcutta and Bombay.
 The Governor-in-Council of each Presidency Town was given the
power to make by-laws, rules and regulations for better
settlement of the disputes arising in the Presidency.
 Each Presidency had a Corporation which consisted of Nine
Aldermen and a Mayor.
 The Person appointed as The Mayor could maximum be a mayor
for one year and after that had to continue as an Alderman.
  The Vacancy against The Mayor’s position was to be filled
amongst the Aldermen who was in turn recommended by the
outgoing Mayor and The Aldermen.
Changes in the Judicial System:
The Charter of 1726 changed the Judicial System in the following ways
 It Established a separate Civil and Criminal Court at each of The
Presidency Towns at Madras, Bombay and Calcutta.
 It Constituted a Mayor’s Court for each of The Presidency Towns.
 The Court’s were as powerful as The Royal Courts whose source of
Authority came directly from The Crown which was regarded as a
Fountain of Justice.
 The Charter initiated a System of Appeals from the courts in India
to The King-in-Council/Privy Council in England.
Court of Requests:
 A court established to deal with cases involving up to Fifteen
Rupees.
 It also involves cases relating to poor people with small claims
who cannot afford to pay the expenses of litigation of Mayor’s
Court.
 The purpose was to resolve cases quickly and speedily.
Shortcomings of the Charter Act 1726:
 The Mayor’s Court lost its Autonomy and Independence.
 The Mayor’s Court was debarred from entertaining a case and
action between the natives until both parties approached The
Court. The Criminal Courts were completely official Ruled as the
official was The Governor-in-Council.
 The Mayor’s Court council members were either Company’s
Workers or other English Dealers, who were dependent on The
Company’s Policies to stay in India and thus were helpless.
 The Mayor’s Court was designed to work with Freedom and
independence but due to constant pressure from The Company,
the freedom and autonomy was impugned.
  There was no legal expert/professional in the council as The
Judges who were themselves not experts were appointed by The
Governor and Council.
 The Company had a policy of giving the offices/powers of equity
to its people and workers and this policy made sure no legal
expert could be hired.

Overview of Mayor’s Court

The Charter of 1726 also constituted a Mayor’s Court for each of the
presidency towns consisting 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 present to form the quorum of the
Court. The Mayor’s Courts were declared to be present to fan the
quorum of the Court. The Mayor’s Courts were declared to be Courts of
record and were authorized to try, hear and determine all civil actions
and pleas between party and party. The Court was also granted
testamentary jurisdiction in power to issue letters of administration to
the legal heir of the deceased person. It was authorized to exercise its
jurisdiction over all persons living in the presidency own and working in
the Company’s subordinate factories.

Appeals from decisions of Mayor’s Court were filed in the Court of

Governor and Council. A second appeal in cases involving 1000 pagodas
or more could be made to king-in-council in England. The court of
Governor and Council also decided criminal cases.
The First Supreme Court(s) Of India

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial body of India

and is the top court under the Indian Constitution. It has wide-
ranging powers and is considered to be one of India’s most
powerful public institutions..
—–

BY the end of the 18th century, the East India Company (EIC)

was in a terrible financial situation, primarily due to corruption.
The EIC was in great debt and owed money to both the bank of
England and the British government. Then British Prime
Minister Lord North decided to overhaul the management of the
EIC with the Regulating Act of 1773. 

The Regulating Act of 1773 

The Act was the first step of the eventual government control of
India post-1858. It provided a new administrative framework for
the EIC. The President of the company in the Calcutta factory,
who used to be known as the Governor of Bengal, was made the
Governor-General of all the Indian territories of the company.
The other governors of Bombay and Madras were made
subordinate to him. He had a council of four members.
The Governor-general and council could make any rules,
regulations, and ordinances they thought just and reasonable
for Calcutta’s order and good governance. Thus, the Act laid
down the foundation of central administration in India. 
One of the most significant provisions of the Act
was establishing a Supreme Court at Calcutta.
The Act was brought about to reform the Constitution of the EIC
and reform its government in India; hence the Governor-general,
the councilors, the Chief Justice, and other Judges of the newly
established Supreme Court were prohibited from accepting any
gifts, presents, donations, gratuity or rewards from any person
and from carrying on any trade or commerce of any kind for
their personal use, benefit or advantage. Any of these above-
mentioned persons were to be British subjects and could be tried
at the King’s Bench in England if they committed any crime or
offence as per the Act against any British subjects or any of the
inhabitants of India.

Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William

(Calcutta) 

Section 13 of the Act made detailed provisions for the

establishment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was to
consist of a Chief Justice and Three Puisne Judges. The British
King appointed the Judges. A barrister of five years standing
was qualified to be appointed as Judges. The judges were to hold
office during the pleasure of the crown.

Sir Elijah Impey was appointed as the first Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court. The judges of the Supreme Court were vested
with such jurisdiction and authority as the Judges of the Court of
King’s Bench in England had under the common law. 
The Supreme Court of Calcutta was the first British Court in
India consisting of lawyer judges; it was the first court fully
independent of the control of the Company’s government in
India, and its jurisdiction was extensive. It had five kinds of
jurisdiction: Civil, equity, criminal, admiralty, and ecclesiastical
jurisdictions. It was empowered to establish rules of practice and
process, and do all things necessary for the administration of
Justice (according to section 13 of the Act). 
The civil jurisdiction of the court was of two kinds: territorial
and personal. With respect to the Presidency of Calcutta, the
Supreme Court had territorial jurisdiction, which meant that all
matters relating to all persons arising within the presidency of
Calcutta fell within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Beyond the presidency lines and within the provinces of Bengal,
Bihar, and Orissa, the Supreme Court had only personal
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court was given the same equity
jurisdiction as the High Court of Chancery in Great Britain had
at that time.
The criminal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extended to all
British subjects residing in Kolkata and within the territories of
Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. Only the British people and the
servants and persons employed with the company were covered
under this jurisdiction. Other natives were not part of the court’s
jurisdiction. 
The Supreme Court had to follow as far as possible the
procedure of the English courts and worked as a court of Oyer
and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery in and for the town of
Calcutta, the factory of Fort William, and the factories
subordinate thereto. The court had no jurisdiction to try the
Governor-General and the members of his council or the judges
of the Supreme Court except in cases of treason or felony.
Mercy petitions were transferred to the Crown Court in England
on the recommendations of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had the same admiralty jurisdiction in all
cases civil and maritime and all maritime cases committed upon
the high seas at that time. The Supreme Court also had the same
jurisdiction over British subjects in India as the ecclesiastical
courts in England at that time. In that capacity, it functioned as a
court of testamentary and probate jurisdiction. It also appointed
guardians and keepers for infants and lunatics properties.

The Act of Settlement of 1781

This was an amendment Act enacted to remove the defects of

the Regulating Act of 1773. But in actuality, there was a lot of
tussle between the Governor-general and the Supreme Court, so
this Act was passed to reduce the Supreme Court’s power and
give it back to the Governor-General and his Council. 
The servants of the EIC that earlier came within the Supreme
Court’s jurisdiction were now exempted from its jurisdiction.
Now, the court’s geographical jurisdiction became limited to
only Calcutta. Any other person who acted on the written orders
of the Governor-general and his council was also exempted from
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, after the enactment of the Act, had no
jurisdiction in the concerning revenue, or any act that was done
in the collection thereof. The government became independent
of the control of the Court in the matter of revenue. The
appellate jurisdiction therein shifted to the hands of the
Governor-general and his Council, as appeals went from
Provincial Courts to the Governor-general and his Council. This
Act made the position of the Council very strong so that it could
continue to have control over the Indian empire.
A positive change brought about by this Act was to protect the
laws and customs of the native people. Section 17 of the Act
states that all matters arising out of inheritance and succession
to land and goods and all matters of contracts and dealings
between the parties were to be decided according to their
personal laws, and if the case was between Mohammedans and
Hindus, then according to the law of the defendant. 
The Supreme Court was authorized to make procedural rules
and regulations according to the needs of the people to whom
the law was to be applied. Therefore, they were, as far as
possible, customizable to their habitat. The rules, regulations
were to be laid before the British monarch for their approval,
and the monarchy had the right to approve, correct, or reject
them.

The Supreme Court at Madras and Bombay 

The Supreme Courts at Madras and Bombay were established by

King George III in 1800 and 1823, respectively. Before the
establishment of the Supreme Court, there were Recorder’s
courts in these presidencies. Their jurisdiction was similar to
that of the Supreme Court of Calcutta. But the Recorder’s
Courts hardly functioned, so the Parliament replaced them with
Supreme Courts. 
The Constitutional powers, jurisdiction, function, and limitations
of the two courts established at Madras and Bombay were
the same as that of the Supreme Court at Calcutta. The Act of
1823 had explicitly mentioned in its Section 17 that the Supreme
Court at Madras and Bombay shall have the power to do,
execute, perform and fulfill all such acts, authority, duties,
matters and things whatsoever as the Supreme Court at Fort
William might be authorized or empowered to do, execute,
perform and fulfill within the Territory of Fort William in
Bengal or places subject to or dependent upon its Government.
This provision placed the three Supreme Courts in the same
position. 

These Supreme Courts functioned until 1862 when they

were replaced by High Courts at all three places through
the Indian High Courts Act 1861.