THE MAYOR’S COURT

The charter of 1726 provided for the establishment of a corporation in each

presidency town. The charter is considered to be an important landmark in the
history of legal system in India as it introduced the English laws into the country.
Factors leading to the Establishment of Mayor’s Court
Before 1726 there were different judicial system functioning in the British Settlement,
which were increased in number by 1726. As a result the servants of the many,
working at such different settlements were subject to different sets of courts.
There was, thus a lack of uniformity in the British settlements, for the same offence
wild entail different and sometimes Contrary Penal Consequence.

Composition:
The Mayor's Court in Calcutta was established by a Royal Charter granted by King
George I in 1726. The court's composition was distinct and reflected the needs of the
growing mercantile community in Calcutta.
The Mayor's Court was composed of a Mayor and nine Aldermen, all appointed by
the East India Company. The Mayor was the chief judicial officer and played a
central role in the court's proceedings. The Aldermen, similar to judges, assisted the
Mayor in adjudicating cases.

The court's composition emphasized the involvement of individuals with a sound

understanding of mercantile practices and commercial disputes. This composition
aimed to ensure that the court could effectively address the legal issues arising in
the burgeoning trading community.

Jurisdiction:
Each Presidency was to consist of a mayor and nine aldermen, a corporation called
the ‘Court of Record’. It was empowered to decide all civil matters within the city of
the Presidency. A quorum of three judges was formed with a mayor and an English
alderman.

The court also exercises testamentary jurisdiction but had no criminal jurisdiction.
Appeals were made from the mayor’s court to the governor and council, and appeals
from the governor and council to the king-in-council on a case value of more than
1000 pagodas.

The jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court was primarily focused on mercantile and
commercial matters. It had the authority to hear and decide cases related to trade,
shipping, and other business transactions.
However, its authority did not extend to the native population. The court's
jurisdictional limits were well-defined and confined to the emerging European
settlement of Calcutta.

Working of the Mayor's Court:

The Mayor's Court was designed to provide a swift and efficient resolution of
commercial disputes, catering to the needs of the growing mercantile community.
The court followed the principles of English law, and its proceedings were conducted
in accordance with the legal norms of the time.

Legal Proceedings:

The court operated based on the adversarial system, where parties to a dispute
presented their cases, and the court, led by the Mayor and Aldermen, made
decisions based on the presented evidence and legal arguments. Legal practitioners,
including attorneys and solicitors, played a role in representing the parties before the
court.

Legal Principles:

The Mayor's Court applied English common law principles and statutes to decide
cases. The court's decisions were influenced by legal precedents and the evolving
legal landscape in England. The Mayor and Aldermen, being familiar with the
commercial practices of the time, applied legal principles in a manner that suited the
needs of the mercantile community.

Role in Commercial Disputes:

The Mayor's Court played a crucial role in resolving commercial disputes, including
issues related to contracts, debts, and maritime matters. The court's decisions had a
significant impact on shaping the legal framework for trade and commerce in
Calcutta.

Appeals:

Appeals from the Mayor's Court were directed to the Court of Admiralty in England.
This appellate structure ensured a level of oversight and consistency in legal
decisions. The appeal process allowed for a review of the Mayor's Court decisions
by higher authorities in England.

The Mayor's Court played a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape of colonial
Calcutta and contributed to the development of a legal framework for trade and
commerce in British India.

Difference between Mayor’s court in Charter of 1687 and 1726

Charter of 1687 Charter of 1726

In the charter of 1687, the Mayor’s Court In the Charter of 1726, the Mayor’s court
received its authority from the Company received its authority from the Crown.

In the Charter of 1726, the mayor’s court was

In the Charter of 1687, the Mayor’s court was
established in all three presidency towns
only functional in Madras
(Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta)

In the Charter of 1687, the Mayor’s Court had In the Charter of 1726, the Mayor’s court only
jurisdiction over both criminal and civil cases. had jurisdiction over civil cases. The Mayor’s
No such provision was present in the Charter court also had jurisdiction over testamentary
of 1687 succession.

In the Charter of 1687, the appeals of the In the Charter of 1726, the appeal of the
Mayor’s court were made to the Court of Mayor’s court was to be made the Governor
Admiralty. The Charter of 1686 had no and Council and the second appeal was to be
provision for a second appeal. made to King-In- Council of England.

In the Charter of 1687, the Mayor’s court

provided provision for Recorder (a legal In the Charter of 1726, the Mayor’s court
expert) to provide assistance to the judges of quorum of judges consisted of laymen
The Mayor’s Court.

In the Charter of 1726, the Mayor’s court

In the Charter of 1687, the Mayor’s court
constituted of a Mayor and 9 Aldermen out
constituted of a Mayor and 12 Aldermen out
which 7 were to be Englishmen and the other
of which at least three were to be Englishmen
2 Aldermen were to be natives of the
and others could be of any nationality
presidency towns

Demerits of the Charter of 1726

Attempts to separate the judiciary from the executive was not totally successful for
the following reasons:

1. The Governor and Council could dismiss the aldermen on reasonable

grounds and the aldermen could challenge this decision in the Privy
Council but this privilege was only on paper.
2. The justice system was in the hands of laymen and professionals as the
people judging the cases had no understanding of the law.
3. In cases where both the plaintiff and the defendants were natives, the
Mayor’s Court had no jurisdiction.
4. Indians did not have adequate representation in the Mayor’s Court since
out of the nine Aldermen only two Aldermen were natives.