Case of Kamaluddin

Facts of the Case

• In 1775 Kamaluddin was ostensible owner of a
salt farm in Hijili on behalf of Kanta Babu.
• He fell into arrears of revenue.
• The Revenue Council ofCallcutta issued a writ
for Kamaluddin’s committal without bail.
• Kamaluddin obtained a Writ of Habeas Corpus
from the Supreme Court to set him free on
bail.
• The Supreme Court held that in case of
disputed account the defendant should be
granted bail till the inquiry regarding his
obligation to pay is completed.
• That Kamaluddin should not be imprisoned
until his under renter had been called to pay
his arrears and had proved to be insolvent.
 Conflict

• Members of the Supreme Council resented

the S C’s action.
• They stated it was “not empowered to take
cognizance of any matter or cause dependent
on or belonging to the revenue”
• The Company was the recognized Diwan and
had exclusive jurisdiction on revenue.
• The Supreme Council ordered the P.C. to re
imprison Kamaluddin.
• They were instructed to pay no attention to
any order of the Supreme Court or any of the
Judges in matters which solely concern
revenue.
• Impey justified the action of the court in a letter
to the Court of Directors saying that
• 1 in a case of this nature it had been the usual
practice for the Revenue Council to take bail and
so the SC had made the direction for taking bail.
• 2 it had been the established practice to
demand rent from the under tenant before
demanding much less imprisoning the farmer and
the courts practice was consistent with this
practice.
• The C.J Impey wrote to the Directors that a
distinction needs to be made between
claiming jurisdiction over the original cause
and an intervention on the part of the S.C to
prevent injustice.
• The Court would be guilty of breach of trust if
it refused to take cognizance of violence and
oppression used in the collection of revenue.
• The case created more cleavage between the
Court and the Council