Cossijurah Case (1779-80)

This case created serious tension between the Government (Executive) and the Supreme
Court.

Facts of the Case

Cossnaut Baboo advanced a large sum of money to Raja Sunder Naraine, a Zamindar of
Cossijurah. The loan remained unpaid for a considerably long time. Consequently, Cossnaut
Baboo brought a suit against the Zamindar in the Supreme Court in August 1779, stating
that the Zamindar was employed in the revenue collection and hence was an employee of
the company.

Proceedings of the Case

1. The Supreme Court issued a writ of Capias warranting arrest of the Zamindar subject
to being released on a bail of Rs. 3 lacs.
2. The Zamindar went underground to avoid arrest.
3. The Collector of Midnapur informed the Governor-General of the situation and
stated that the Zamindar was being prevented from collecting land revenue.
4. The Government asked for the opinion of the Advocate-General, who maintained
that the Regulating Act did not extend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to the
Zamindars. He suggested that the Zamindar of Cossijurah be told that he will not
come under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. The Zamindar should, hence, not
appear, plead or do any act, which will amount to his recognizing the Court’s
jurisdiction.
5. The writ of Capias remaining unexecuted, the Supreme Court proceeded with the
write of sequestration (seizing the Zamindar’s property), declaring him an
absconder.
6. The Sheriff of Calcutta with a small force was sent to Zamindar to arrest him.
7. The Government arrested the Sheriff, though he was subsequently released.
8. This angered the Supreme Court, but they could not do anything. They retaliated by
arresting the Advocate-General for his advice. He was tried and died in prison.
9. This decision of the Supreme Court was disliked by the Governor-General and
Council, bringing to surface the jurisdictional dispute between the Supreme Court
and the Governor-General and Council, due to defective and ambiguous language
used in the Regulating Act. The Governor-General was of the view that it could never
have been intended by the draftsmen of the Regulating Act to divest the Company of
its power to collect and supervise the collection of revenue through its servants. On
the other hand, the Supreme Court justified its stand on the ground that Zamindars
who were collecting and supervising the land revenue collection were answerable to
court for any illegal act committed by them during the course of discharge of their
official duty as under the Regulating Act “persons indirectly employed by the
Company” were put under its jurisdiction. This extended interpretation of the phrase
led to open conflict between the Governor-General and Council and the Supreme
Court.
10. The decision given by the Supreme Court was the last blow given to the Government
and reached its climax in this case. The highhandedness of the Supreme Court was
resented by the Government and the Indian zamindars. Many English officers
resented this decision as a check on their exploitation and oppression of the Indians.
11. Under these circumstances a petition was sent in March 1779, signed by the British
officers, Zamindars and the servants of the Company to the British Parliament
against the excesses of the Court. The Governor-General and the members of the
Council submitted a separate petition to the Parliament. As a result, the British
Parliament passed an Act of Settlement, 1781 to remedy the defects of the
Regulating Act.