Establishment of Mayor’s Court – 1726

Introducon:

The Mayor’s Court was established in India in by The Charter of 1726 at

Madras, Calcua and Bombay which were East India Company’s Highest

Courts in Brish India. The East India Company ll 1726 had no power to

manage Capital Oences and Capital Punishments, to all the Presidencies with

only Civil Jurisdicon 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 dierent judicial systems were working

in Brish India. Since there were dierent Judicial Systems the servants of The

East India Company at dierent selements were governed by a dierent set

of rules. Thus, there was a lack of uniformity in The Jusce System and the

same oence would carry a dierent punishment at dierent selements.

There was an absence of a Competent Court in India which could Supersede all

the other courts.

Mayor courts under charter of 1726

1-

The Charter of 1726 established Mayor’s Court at Madras, Bombay and

Calcua consisted of a Mayor and 9 Aldermen.

2-

Mayor and 7 Aldermen were to be English and the rest were subjects of

princely Indian States friendly with Britain.

3-

The Mayor holds oce for one year. The Aldermen hold oce for lifelong.

Every year the outgoing Mayor and Aldermen elected a new Mayor out of the

Aldermen.

4-

The Mayor and Aldermen lled up the vacancy of Aldermen from among the

inhabitants of the Presidency Town.

5-

The Governor in Council could dismiss the Aldermen on reasonable ground.

6-

The Mayor Court was to be the Court of record.

7-

Under the Charter of 1726, the Mayor Court could hear all civil cases arising

in the Presidency Town and its subordinate factories.

8-

The appeals of the Mayor Court would be heard by the Governor and Council

in cases for less than 1000 pagodas and the appeals from the Governor and
Council were heard by the King in Council (The Crown’s Privy Council) in

England for cases over the value of 1000 or more Pagodas.

9-

The Mayor’s Court was also given further powers to provide Probates of wills

of the deceased and to punish any person guilty of contempt.

10

-As the Charter no law was menoned in the Charter the English law was

used to govern both the naves and Englishmen and the Mayor’s Court was to

funcon on the same procedure as followed in England.

**The Governor and Council were to appoint a Sheri who was the ocer of

the Mayor’s Court. His tenure was for a period of one year. On the wrien

complaint provided by the plain, the court issues the summons by direcng

the sheri to order the defendant to appear in court on a set date and me

xed by the court. If the defendant doesn’t comply with the orders of the

court, the court would issue a warrant direcng the sheri to arrest the

defendant and present him before the court. The court could grant release to

the defendant on bail or security. Warrants of execuon were issued by the

Court to the implementaon of judgments. On receiving the warrant the

sheri was to implement its judgment. (Learn in chronological order)

Jusce of peace and administraon of jusce (Important…must menon in

answer)

-
Under the Charter of 1726, the jusce of peace were the Governor

and the ve senior members of the Council. The jusce of peace could hear

pey criminal oences and punish and arrest oenders. Three jusces of

peace were to form a Court of Record. Working of Mayors court - For the

beer governance of the presidency towns the Governor and Council of each

presidency town were given powers to make their own bylaws, rules, and

ordinance. Punishment could be provided for the breach of any bylaw, rules,

and ordinances. Any punishment prescribed and bylaws, rules, and ordinance

made were to be agreeable to reason and the English law.

Dierences bw Mayor court of 1687 and 1726

1-

The Mayor’s Court under The Charter of 1687 drew the powers from The

East India Company while The Mayor’s Court under The Charter of 1726 drew

its power from The Crown.

2-

The Mayor’s Court under The Charter of 1687 was a Company Court while

The Mayor’s Court under The Charter of 1726 was a Crown Court.

3-

The Charter of 1687 established a Mayor’s Court only at Madras while under

The Charter of 1726 established Mayor’s Court at all The Presidency Towns at

Madras, Chennai and Bombay.

4-

The Mayor’s Court under The Charter of 1687 was a Court of Equity while

The Mayor’s Court under The Charter of 1726 was a Court of English Law.

5-

The Mayor’s Court built up under The Charter of 1687 arranged the portrayal

of the locals on the court. The Crown’s Mayors Courts did not have any such

portrayal, however, there was no arrangement for the same under The Charter

of 1726

Changes introduced to the Charter of 1753

Organisaon of mayor’s courts

Changes introduced to the Charter of 1753 Organisaon of mayor’s courts

Under the Charter of 1726 the Mayor was appointed by the Aldermen. The

Mayor lled the vacancy among the Alderman and the remaining Aldermen

were lled by the members of the town. This system of appointments was

changed in the Charter of 1753. Under this Charter, the Governor and Council

had the power to appoint the Aldermen and the Mayor. While appoinng the

Mayor a panel of names of two Aldermen was to be submied to the Governor

and Council. Among the two names sent the Governor and Council would

select one name for the oce of the Mayor.

Jurisdicon of the mayor’s court

Under the Charter of 1726 the jurisdicon of the charter was uncertain which

became one of the important causes for the conict between the Mayor’s
Court and the Governor and Council. In the Chart of 1753 aempts were made

to bring about certainty in the jurisdicon of the Mayor’s Court. Under the

Charter of 1753, the Mayor’s Court was given expressive rights to hear cases

against the Mayor and aldermen, but under such a situaon the pares of the

dispute were not allowed to sit as Judges of the Court. Similarly, they were also

to hear suits against the East India Company. The Charter of 1753 also clearly

instructed that the Mayor’s Court had no jurisdicon in cases concerning

nave cizens unless both the pares agree to submit the case in front of the

Mayor’s Court