HISTORY OF COURT

MODULE 1
1. Administration of justice in presidency town and development of court under
East India company 1600 to 1773
1.1.1 PERIOD FROM 1600 TO 1726
The administration of justice from 1600-1726
1. Madras:
o Stage I (1639–1678):
 In 1639, an Englishman named Francis Day acquired land
from the Hindu Raja of Chandragiri, creating Madraspatnam.
 The East India Company built Fort St. George (known as White
Town) on this land.
 Nearby villages inhabited by locals were called Black Town.
 The Agent and Council in White Town decided both civil and
criminal cases for English residents.
 Serious cases were referred to England.
o Stage II (1678–1683):
 The High Court of Judicature was established in 1678.
 It sat twice a week, trying both civil and criminal cases with 12
juries.
 Appeals from the Choultry Court were heard.
 The Choultry Court was reconstituted, replacing the
native Adikari with three English officers.
o Stage III (1683–1726):
 The Admiralty Court (1686) handled mercantile and maritime
cases.
 The Mayor’s Court (Charter of 1687) included a Mayor,
Aldermen, and Burgesses.
 The Mayor’s Court tried civil cases up to the value of 3
pagodas.
2. Bombay:
o The administration of justice in Bombay followed a similar trajectory,
with stages of development.
o The Admiralty Court and the Mayor’s Court played significant roles.
3. Calcutta:
o Calcutta’s judicial system evolved in parallel.
o The Mayor’s Court in Calcutta, established by the Charter of 1726,
mirrored the one in Madras.
o It consisted of a Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses, with a Recorder
attached.
 4. Surat:
o Surat, an important trading center, had its own legal system.
o The Mayor’s Court in Surat operated similarly to those in other
presidency towns.

In summary, during this period, these courts—such as the Mayor’s Court and the
Admiralty Court—played pivotal roles in shaping India’s judicial landscape,
ensuring justice for English residents and merchants

 ESTABLISHMENT OF MAYORS COURT 1726

The Mayor’s Court, established in India by the Charter of 1726, played a

significant role in the British colonial legal system. Let’s delve into its background,
features, and implications in straightforward language:
1. Background and Need for Establishment:
o Prior to 1726, various judicial systems operated in British India,
leading to a lack of uniformity in justice. Different settlements
followed distinct rules, resulting in varying punishments for similar
offenses.
o The East India Company had limited authority over capital offenses
and punishments, primarily focusing on civil jurisdiction.
o To address these issues, the Mayor’s Court was established
in Madras, Calcutta, and Bombay—the East India Company’s
highest courts in British India.
2. Features of the Charter of 1726:
o Local Courts were set up in each of the Presidency Towns (Madras,
Calcutta, and Bombay).
o The Governor-in-Council of each Presidency Town gained the power
to create by-laws, rules, and regulations for dispute resolution.
o Each Presidency had a Corporation comprising Nine Aldermen and
a Mayor.
o The Mayor served a maximum term of one year, after which they
continued as an Alderman.
o Vacancies for the Mayor’s position were filled from among the
Aldermen, based on recommendations.
3. Changes in the Judicial System:
o The Charter of 1726 introduced several key changes:
 Separate Civil and Criminal Courts were established in each
Presidency Town.
 The Mayor’s Court held authority comparable to Royal Courts,

directly deriving its power from the Crown.
 A system of appeals from Indian courts to the King-in-
Council/Privy Council in England was initiated.
4. Mayor’s Court under the Charter of 1687:
o The Charter of 1687 granted the East India Company the power to
establish a Municipality and a Mayor’s Court in Madras.
o The Mayor’s Court handled both civil and criminal cases and
exercised testamentary jurisdiction.

In summary, the Mayor’s Court, established under the Charter of 1726, aimed to
bring consistency and efficiency to the British Indian legal system, bridging gaps in
justice administration and ensuring uniformity across settlements

1.1.2 CHANGES INTRODUCED BY THE CHARTER OF 1753

Organisation of Mayor’s Courts:

The Charter of 1753 introduced essential organizational changes to the Mayor’s
Courts:

 Revival with Modifications: The Charter breathed new life into the Mayor’s
Courts, which were established to handle legal matters within the
presidency towns.
 Subordination to Governor and Council: To streamline decision-making,
the Mayor’s Courts were now subordinated to the Governor and Council.
This change aimed to enhance coordination and efficiency.

2. Jurisdiction of Mayor’s Courts:

The Charter defined the scope of authority for the Mayor’s Courts:

 Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction: These courts had jurisdiction over both civil
and criminal cases within the presidency towns. They could adjudicate
disputes, levy fines, and enforce legal decisions.
 Exemption of Indians: Interestingly, the Charter explicitly
exempted Indians from the jurisdiction of Mayor’s Courts. This provision
later evolved into the concept of judicial review, allowing Indians to
challenge matters brought before the court.

3. Deposits of Money by the Suitors:

A novel system was introduced:

 Security Deposit: Litigants (referred to as “suitors”) were now required to

deposit a certain amount of money before filing a case. This deposit served
as security and discouraged frivolous or baseless litigation.

4. Court Established under Charter of 1753:

The Charter formalized the establishment of a court with specific powers and
procedures:

 Structured Legal Processes: The court played a crucial role in resolving

legal disputes, maintaining order, and ensuring fairness.
 Efficient Adjudication: It aimed to enhance legal processes, making them
more efficient and accessible.

5. Merits of Charter of 1753:

The Charter’s merits included:

 Clarity and Structure: Clear provisions and organization improved legal

proceedings.
 Enhanced Access: The system became more accessible to litigants.
 Balanced Approach: Balancing the interests of English residents and Indian
subjects.

6. Demerits of the Charter of 1753:

Despite improvements, challenges remained:

 Contentious Aspects: Some provisions were still contentious.

 Conflicts: Conflicts between Mayor’s Courts and the Governor and Council
persisted, leading to confusion at times.

In summary, the Charter of 1753 marked a significant step in shaping the legal
landscape of colonial India. It emphasized organization, jurisdiction, and
procedural fairness, laying the groundwork for subsequent legal developments.

 WARREN HASTING PLAN OF 1772

Judicial Plan of 1772

The dual system and famine of Bengal destroyed the Bengal. Also the
administration of Justice & Revenue collection was in a bad shape. At that time
court used to charge commission from the parties on the amount that used to
recover by them by help of court. Judge didn`t get regular salary so they indulge in
bribe culture and also the atrocities of Englishmen leads to corruption in courts.

On April 3, 1772, Warren Hastings assumes the o ice of Governor of Fort William
and he became the first Governor General of Bengal. He appointed a committee
that consists of four members of council that formed a Committee of Circuit that
consists of Governor General of Bengal plus four members of council. On 15th
August 1772, Committee of Circuit prepared a judicial plan to regulate the
administration of justice and revenue collection. This plan is called as Hasting Plan
of 1772. This plan consisted of 37 Regulations. These regulations dealt with
revenue and administration of civil and criminal justice.

Territorial Division
He divided the Diwani area of Bengal, Bihar, Orissa into several districts. And each
district having an o icer called Collector as its head. Collector have some powers
like he will be primarily responsible for revenue collection and he had the direct
control of revenue collection. Collector also have some judicial powers like he will
act as a judge in Mofussil Deewani Adalat.

Revenue Administration
The Revenue Boards at Murshidabad & Patna were abolished & a sapreme authority
called the Board of Revenue was setup at Calcutta which consisted of the Governor
& all the members of the Council. District Supervisors who were appointed in 1769
by Harry Verelst were made 'Collector' their respective districts & were to look after
the work of revenue collection. District Collectors was assisted by native o icer
called the Naib Diwen. Who acted as a native revenue executive.

Administration of Civil Justice Administration

Small Cause Adalat

 Adalats headed by Head Farmer/Village head or Fargana

 Deal with small or petty cases
 Decided causes upto 10 Rupees
Mofussil Deewani Adalat

 Presided by Collector and he will act as a Judge.

 Jurisdiction - all civil cases of revenue
 Court held its sittings twice a week.
 Appeal will go to Sadar Diwani Adalat.
 Cases to caste, religion, marriage, inheritance.
 Collector was assisted by Kazi & Pandit who expounded law to him.
 Matters relating to succession, zamindari & taluqdari, property reserved for
Governor and Council.

Sadar Deewani Adalat

 Governor and two council members will act as a judge.

 It used to have both appellate and original jurisdiction.
 In absence of governor, alderman of council acts as a judge.
 Governor aided by Diwan Treasury & Chief Kanungo.
 Court fee will be the 5 percent of dispute amount.
 It was first established at Calcutta.
 It was first sitted in 17th March, 1773.

Administration of Criminal Justice

Mofussil Nizamat/Fauzdari Adalat

 Deal with criminal cases.

 Governed with Mohamadeen laws of crime.
 Presiding O icers � Muslim Law O icers i.e. Maulvi.
 Collectors used to have an important role in these courts i.e. Supervisor.
 This court was not empowered to award death sentence.

Sadar Nizamat Adalat

 Apex court for criminal cases in the province.

 Used to have both original and appellate jurisdiction.
 Used to have specific jurisdiction to decide over the matter of death
sentence.
 Death Warrant � signed by Nawab as the head of Nizamat.
  Judge of Court � Daroga � I � Adalat.
 Assisted by a Chief Qazi and three Maulvies.
 These persons appointed by Nawab on advice of governor.
 Supervisor � Governor-in-Council.

Merits

 Judicial Plan of 1772 � safeguarded personal laws i.e. Hindu Law & Muslim
Law
 People was not going so far for accessing to justice/courts because of the
district system.
 No confusion or clash because in of all courts ( Deewani, Faujdaari ) already
defined in judicial plan.
 Judges were English but assisted by local native.

Demerits

 Overcentralization of power � Collector.

 Warren Hastings do heed about Hindu and Muslims but he didn`t heed
about the other religions.
 Collectors misused power � indulged in private trading.
 Judges were Englishmen but local natives sometime disguided them.
 Collector paid more attention to revenue collection than civil
administration.

REFORMS UNDER THE PLAN OF 1774

1. Establishment of Provincial Council for Civil Justice:

o Under the Judicial Plan of 1774, a Provincial Council for Civil
Justice was established.
o This council played a crucial role in administering civil justice in
the Diwani areas.
o It aimed to bring order and efficiency to the judicial process,
especially in the regions surrounding the presidency towns.
o The presidency towns (such as Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras)
already had established judicial systems like the Mayor’s Court and
the Court of Governor-in-Council.
 o However, the adjoining areas (referred to as Mofussils) lacked a
proper judicial setup, and this reform sought to rectify that 1.
2. Board of Revenue at Calcutta fkor Revenue Administration:
o Recognizing the interconnectedness of revenue and judicial
administration, Warren Hastings took steps to improve both.
o Revenue administration was vital for the Britishers, as it provided a
significant portion of their finances.
o To collect revenue effectively, there needed to be stability and peace
in the provinces.
o The prosperity of the people, especially those engaged in agriculture,
depended on maintaining peace and order.
o A proper judicial system was essential to ensure security of life and
property, which, in turn, contributed to maintaining peace.
o Prior to these reforms, there was no centralized judicial setup,
leading to local authorities (such as Zamindars) exercising judicial
power without proper checks.
o Corruption had seeped into the courts, with judges charging
commissions from parties involved in cases, undermining the
principles of natural justice.

In summary, Warren Hastings’ judicial reforms aimed to create a more efficient

and just system, bridging the gap between revenue administration and judicial
administration in the British-controlled territories of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa

1.2 regulating act of 1773 : provision of the act

1. Background and Reasons:

o The East India Company was facing financial troubles and had
requested a loan from the British government.
o Corruption allegations were rampant against company officials.
o Bengal suffered a terrible famine, and the dual administration system
(Diwani and Nizamat rights) was causing complaints.
o Lawlessness increased, and the company lost to Mysore’s Hyder Ali
in 1769.
2. What the Act Did:
o The Regulating Act allowed the company to keep its Indian territories
but aimed to regulate its activities.
o It introduced the concept of a Governor-General and Council of four
members in Calcutta.
 o The act didn’t fully take over power; it merely regulated the
company’s actions.
3. Key Provisions:
o Centralized Administration: The act centralized administrative and
political authority.
o Supreme Court: The act established the Supreme Court of
Judicature at Calcutta, separate from the executive branch.
o Local Taxation: Local governments could levy taxes on people under
the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

In summary, the Regulating Act of 1773 aimed to improve governance and justice
administration in India, addressing financial, administrative, and judicial issues.

ESTABLISHMENT OF SUPREME COURT AT CALCUTTA UNDER THE

CHARTER OF 1774
1. Charter of 1774:
o In accordance with the power granted by the Regulating Act of 1773,
the Crown issued a Charter on March 26, 1774, officially
establishing the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta.
o This Charter settled various details related to the Court and abolished
the legal provisions of the Charter of 1753.
o The Charter’s provisions meant the supersession of the Mayor’s
Court and the Court of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery.
2. Composition of the Supreme Court:
o The Supreme Court was constituted as a Court of Record.
o It consisted of:
 Chief Justice: Sir Elijah Impey was appointed as the Chief
Justice.
 Three Puisne Judges: Robert Chambers, S. C. Le Maistre, and
John Hyde served as the three Puisne Judges.
 All judges were Barristers with at least five years of standing.
 They were declared Justices of the Peace and Coroners within
Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.
 In terms of authority and jurisdiction, they held a position
similar to Judges of the King’s Bench in England.
 The Chief Justice had a casting vote.
 Writs, summons, rules, orders, and other mandatory
processes issued by the Court ran in the Crown’s name.
3. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
o The Supreme Court had the following key jurisdictions:
  Original Jurisdiction in Civil Cases:
 It heard, examined, tried, and determined all civil
causes, suits, and actions against:
 The East India Company.
 The Mayor and Aldermen of Calcutta.
 Crown’s subjects residing within Bengal, Bihar,
and Orissa or having debts, effects, or estate
within the same.
 Persons employed by or directly or indirectly in
the service of the Company, Mayor and Aldermen,
or any Crown’s subjects.
 Inhabitants of India residing in the said provinces
if they entered into written agreements with
Crown’s subjects, provided the cause of action
exceeded Rs. 500.
 Jurisdiction as a Court of Equity:
 The Supreme Court acted as a Court of Equity in the
English legal sense.
 It administered justice in a summary manner, following
the rules and proceedings of the High Court of
Chancery in Great Britain.
 It issued subpoenas and other processes to compel
appearance, answers upon oath, and obedience to
decrees and orders.
 Jurisdiction as a Criminal Court:
 The Supreme Court served as a Court of Oyer and
Terminer and Gaol Delivery in and for the town of
Calcutta, the factory of Fort William, and subordinate
factories.

In summary, the establishment of the Supreme Court in Calcutta under the Charter
of 1774 marked a significant step toward creating a separate and independent
judicial system in India, enhancing governance and justice administration

WORKING OF SUPREME COURT AT CALCUTTA.

1. Composition of the Supreme Court:
o The Supreme Court was composed of the following key members:
 Chief Justice: Sir Elijah Impey served as the Chief Justice.
 Three Puisne Judges: Robert Chambers, S. C. Le Maistre, and
John Hyde were the three Puisne Judges.
  All judges were Barristers with at least five years of standing.
 They held the position of Justices of the Peace and
Coroners within Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.
 Their authority was similar to that of Judges of the King’s
Bench in England.
 The Chief Justice had a casting vote in case of a tie.
 The Court issued writs, summons, rules, orders, and other
mandatory processes in the Crown’s name.
2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
o The Supreme Court had three main areas of jurisdiction:
 Original Jurisdiction in Civil Cases:
 It heard, examined, tried, and determined all civil
causes, suits, and actions against:
 The East India Company.
 The Mayor and Aldermen of Calcutta.
 Crown’s subjects residing within Bengal, Bihar,
and Orissa or having debts, effects, or estate
within the same.
 Persons employed by or directly or indirectly in
the service of the Company, Mayor and Aldermen,
or any Crown’s subjects.
 Inhabitants of India residing in the said provinces
if they entered into written agreements with
Crown’s subjects, provided the cause of action
exceeded Rs. 500.
 Jurisdiction as a Court of Equity:
 The Supreme Court acted as a Court of Equity in the
English legal sense.
 It administered justice in a summary manner, following
the rules and proceedings of the High Court of
Chancery in Great Britain.
 The Court issued subpoenas and other processes to
compel appearance, answers upon oath, and
obedience to decrees and orders.
 Jurisdiction as a Criminal Court:
 The Supreme Court served as a Court of Oyer and
Terminer and Gaol Delivery in and for the town of
Calcutta, the factory of Fort William, and subordinate
factories.
3. Challenges and Impact:
 o The Supreme Court faced challenges due to its dual role as a civil and
criminal court.
o It sometimes clashed with the local authorities and the Governor-
General and Council.
o Despite these challenges, it played a significant role in shaping legal
precedents and establishing principles of justice in British India.

1.3 SETTLEMENT ACT 1781

1. Background and Reasons:

o The Act aimed to rectify the shortcomings of the Regulating Act of
1773.
o It addressed issues related to governance, administration, and
justice in British India.
2. Key Provisions:
o Relations Between Supreme Court and Governor-General in
Council:
 The Act clarified the relationship between the Supreme
Court and the Governor-General in Council.
 It sought to establish a clear framework for their interactions
and responsibilities.
o Removal of Grievances Against the Supreme Court:
 The Act aimed to create a more effective and reliable system
of courts.
 It addressed grievances and challenges related to the
functioning of the Supreme Court.
3. Context and Purpose:
o The conflict between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Council
reached its peak during 1779-1780.
o The Supreme Council filed a petition against the improper working of
the Supreme Court in Bengal.
o Various zamindars and company’s servants also filed similar
petitions.
o In response, the British Parliament appointed a Committee (Touchet)
to investigate and report promptly.
o Based on the Committee’s report, the Parliament passed the Act of
Settlement in 1781.
4. Reasons for Passing the Act:
o Despite the Regulating Act of 1773 bringing significant changes to the
government system, certain loopholes remained.
 o Issues arose during Warren Hastings’ administration, leading to
discontent and criticism.
o Examples include the Patna Case, Cossijurah Case, and Nand
Kumar Case.
o A significant rift existed between the Supreme Court and the
Governor-General in Council, affecting administration.
o Public agitation occurred due to government interference in personal
laws of communities.
5. Aims of the Act:
o Indemnification: To protect the Governor-General and Council
officers who acted under their orders against undue resistance from
the Supreme Court.
o Clarification: To remove doubts and difficulties arising from the
Regulating Act and the Charter, which created divisions between the
government and the court.
o Revenue Collection: To assist the government in Bengal, Bihar, and
Orissa in collecting revenue with certainty.
o Indigenous Rights: To safeguard the rights, usages, and privileges of
indigenous people.
6. Features of the Act:
o Exemption for Governor-General and Council: They were exempted
from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for official acts.
o Exclusion of Revenue Matters: Matters related to revenue were
excluded from the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
o Servants of the Company: Servants of the company were also
exempted from the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction for their official
actions.

1.4 JUDICIAL REFORM OF LORD CORNWALLIS

2. Background and Aims:
2.1 Lord Cornwallis succeeded Warren Hastings as the Governor General of
India.
2.2 Before accepting the post, he put forward certain conditions to The
Crown:
2.2.1 The office of Governor General and the commander-in-chief would be
united under one person (the Governor General).
2.2.2 The Governor General-in-council would have a veto over decisions
concerning administration and the military.
2.3 His primary aims as Governor General were:
 2.3.1 Uproot corruption from the existing judiciary and administration
system.
2.3.2 Address the challenges related to land revenue collection.
2.3.3 Develop a proper system for the administration of justice.
3. Three Phases of Judicial Reforms:
3.1 Lord Cornwallis introduced changes in the judicial system over three
years:
3.1.1 Judicial Plan of 1787: Focused on reorganizing districts and
establishing various courts.
3.1.2 Judicial Plan of 1790: Further reorganized districts into divisions and
abolished certain courts.
3.1.3 Judicial Plan of 1793: Consolidated and finalized the reforms.
4. Key Reforms:
4.1 Reorganization of Districts (1787):
4.1.1 Reduced the number of districts in Calcutta from 36 to 23.
4.1.2 Appointed an Englishman as a collector in each district.
4.1.3 The collector had dual responsibilities:
4.1.3.1 Collect revenue.
4.1.3.2 Decide cases arising from revenue matters.
4.1.4 The collector also presided over the mofussil diwani adalat (district-
level civil court) as a judge.
4.1.5 Appeals from the mofussil diwani adalat went to the Sadr Diwani
Adalat when the matters exceeded Rs. 1000.
4.1.6 The Sadr Diwani Adalat was presided over by the Governor General.
4.1.7 The collector also served as a magistrate in the Magistrate’s Court,
empowered to try and punish cases of petty crimes and offenses up
to Rs. 200.
4.2 Establishment of Mal Adalats (1787):
4.2.1 Mal Adalats were revenue courts in each district, exclusively dealing
with revenue matters.
4.2.2 The collector presided over these courts, deciding cases related to
revenue.
4.2.3 Appeals from the Mal Adalat lay to the Board of Revenue in Calcutta
and then to the Governor General-in-council.
4.3 Registrar Courts (1787):
4.3.1 An assistant officer of the collector, known as the Registrar, was
appointed in each district.
4.3.2 The Registrar’s court decided civil cases up to the value of Rs. 200.
4.3.3 The decree passed by the Registrar was not final until it was signed by
the Mofussil Diwani Adalat (the collector).
 4.4 Reorganization into Divisions (1790):
4.4.1 Divided the districts into four divisions: Murshidabad, Calcutta,
Dacca, and Patna.
4.4.2 Abolished the Mofussil Faujdari Courts (district-level criminal
courts) and replaced them with the Court of Circuits.
4.5 Cornwallis Code (1793):
4.5.1 The culmination of his reforms.
4.5.2 Founded on the principle of separation of powers.
4.5.3 Stripped the collector of all judicial and magisterial authority.
4.5.4 All civil cases in the district were heard by the judges.
5. Legacy:
5.1 Lord Cornwallis’s reforms laid the groundwork for a more efficient and
transparent judicial system.
5.2 Despite challenges, his efforts contributed significantly to shaping legal
precedents and principles of justice in British India.

JUDICIAL PLAN OF 1787

Judicial Plan of 1787 introduced by Lord Cornwallis, the Governor General of
India from 1786 to 1793. This plan aimed to reform the judicial system and
enhance efficiency. Here are the key features of the plan:
1. Reorganization of Districts:
o The number of districts in Calcutta was reduced from 36 to 23.
o Each district had an appointed Englishman called the Collector.
o The Collector had dual responsibilities:
 Collect revenue.
 Decide cases arising from revenue matters.
2. Role of the Collector:
o The Collector presided over the Mofussil Diwani Adalat (district-
level civil court) as a judge.
o As a Magistrate, the Collector had the power to:
 Arrest criminals.
 Hear evidence against them.
 Commit cases to the Criminal court for trial.
o The Collector also handled civil cases apart from revenue matters.
3. Mal Adalats:
o Revenue courts established in each district.
o Exclusively dealt with revenue matters.
o The Collector presided over these courts.
o Appeals from Mal Adalats went to the Board of Revenue in Calcutta
and then to the Governor General-in-council.
4. Registrar Courts:
o An assistant officer called the Registrar was appointed in each
district.
o The Registrar’s court decided civil cases up to Rs. 200.
o The Registrar’s decree was not final until signed by the Mofussil
Diwani Adalat (the Collector).

JUDICIAL PLAN OF 1790

1.
o Focus: The primary focus of this plan was on criminal law.
o Reorganization of Districts:
 The districts were divided into four divisions: Murshidabad,
Calcutta, Dacca, and Patna.
 This reorganization aimed to streamline administration and
improve governance.
o Abolition of Mofussil Faujdari Courts:
 The Mofussil Faujdari Courts, which were district-level
criminal courts, were abolished.
 They were replaced with the Court of Circuits.
2. Merits:
o Streamlined Administration: The division of districts facilitated
better administration and management.
o Clarity in Criminal Justice: The abolition of Mofussil Faujdari Courts
and the introduction of the Court of Circuits brought clarity to criminal
proceedings.
o Uniformity: The plan aimed for uniformity in criminal law across the
territories.
3. Demerits:
o Limited Scope: The plan primarily focused on criminal law, leaving
other aspects of the judicial system untouched.
o Resistance and Challenges: The changes faced resistance from
local authorities and officials accustomed to the old system.
o Incomplete Reforms: While it addressed criminal justice, broader
judicial reforms were still needed.

JUDICIAL PLAN OF 1793

1. Separation of Executive and Judiciary:
 o The powers vested in the collector were administrative and
judicial as he was also in charge of revenue collection and for
deciding cases arising out of revenue matters.
o Under the Judicial Plan of 1793, the collector’s role was limited to
revenue collection only.
o This separation ensured a clearer distinction between the executive
and judicial functions.
2. Abolition of Mal Adalats:
o The Mal Adalats, which were revenue courts in each district
exclusively dealing with revenue matters, were abolished.
o This move aimed to simplify the judicial structure and avoid
overlapping jurisdictions.
3. Merits:
o Clarity in Roles: The separation of executive and judiciary clarified
the roles of collectors, ensuring they focused solely on revenue
collection.
o Efficiency: By abolishing Mal Adalats, the judicial system became
more streamlined and efficient.
4. Demerits:
o Limited Judicial Reforms: While the plan addressed revenue-related
matters, broader judicial reforms were still needed.
o Resistance: The changes faced resistance from local authorities and
officials accustomed to the old system.

PROGRESS OF ADALAT SYSTEM UNDER SIR JOHN SHORE

INTRODUCTION
Unfortunately, Lord Cornwallis did not stay in India to see the outcome of his
judicial reforms which he had introduced in 1793. He was succeeded by Sir John
Shore, a member of the Indian service, as Governor-General in 1793. John Shore
greatly admired the scheme of judicial reforms introduced by Lord Cornwallis and
considered it most beneficial to the people of India particularly, the separation of
executive from judicial functions and the permanent settlement of revenue proved
highly advantageous for the British Government as also to the Indian-natives.
NEED FOR NEW PLAN
The actual operation of the Judicial Plan under Cornwallis Code showed that the
scheme was wise but it created a serious problem of large arrears of cases
awaiting disposal in the courts. The constantly mounting arrears of work in the law
courts caused delay in disposal of cases which defeated the main purpose of the
judicial scheme. Keith rightly observed, Cornwallis judicial system was based on
the permanent settlement of the revenue, the separation of revenue
administration from the judiciary, and the employment of Europeans in the higher
offices, subjecting them to the control of a complex system of regulations to check
any misdemeanors. Unquestionably, his motives were excellent but the weakness
of his Plan lay in the fact that recourse to courts was wholly ineffective as a means
to protect the riots against the zamindars. The permanent Settlement worked
badly; litigation choked the courts and sales of estates became very common
Therefore, many representations were made to the Government to mend the
matters and to initiate adequate measures for resolving these difficulties.

STEPS TAKEN BY JOHN SHORE

 Sir John Shore soon realized that some immediate steps were
necessary to relieve the courts from congestion.
 In his opinion, inadequacy of courts, limited powers of the Registrar
and Munsifs and abolition of court fee were the main causes of
overburdening the courts with arrears of work. Therefore, he
introduced certain, minor changes in the Cornwallis Plan of 1793 in
order to remove these defects.
 He also reached a conclusion that mismanagement by Zamindars in
the collection of land revenue was yet another cause of increase in
the volume of litigation in Diwani Adalat, however, he was not in
favour of simplifying the procedure because it was necessary to
follow the forms of procedure for proper administration of justice, nor
did he favour the idea of increasing the number of courts meant
additional burden the Government Exchequer.
 John Shore declared the in-disposal cases past years was only
temporary phase during of scheme cases would expeditiously
different tribunals were established started functioning in the full
moderate changes introduced earlier Cornwallis Scheme were
CHANGES IN 1794
 Under the Judicial Plan of 1793, The Registrar’s Court was
empowered to decide suits up to Rs 200 but the decrees passed them
had been countersigned by the Judges of the Diwani Adalat.
 The process mentioned above was time consuming therefore John
Shore changed this procedure and empowered the Registrar to try
and decide cases without any reference to, or countersignature of the
Judge of Diwani Adalat.
 The decision of the Registrar court in all civil matters suits not
exceeding Rs 25 in value was final.
 However, if the judgement delivered by the Registrar court appeared
to be apparently erroneous or unjust and amount exceeded Rs 25 an
 appeal could be moved in Provincial court of appeal and not to the
Mofussil Diwani Adalat as mentioned in Lord Cornwallis plan
 This change in plan resulted in reducing the workload of Mofussil
Diwani Adalat as it avoided countersigning the decrees of registrar
court.
 An additional court for deciding petty cases was established in each
of the district and three cities of Patna, Dacca and Murshidabad.
 By Regulation of 1794, Sir John Shore allowed partial judicial powers
to the Collectors.
 The judge of Diwani Adalat was empowered to refer to the Collector,
the revenue cases involving adjustment accounts for scrutiny and
report.
 The Collector’s report was not binding on the Judges and they had
full authority to confirm, set-aside or alter the report. This provision
saved considerable time of the Diwani Adalat and enabled Collectors
to collect land revenue without any difficulty.
CHANGES IN 1796
 Sir John Shore was not satisfied with the changes introduced by him
in 1794 as they did not yield the desired results so far quick disposal
of the cases was concerned.
 The provision of appeal from Munsif’s Court to the Provincial Court
of Appeal under Regulation VIII of 1794, caused an additional burden
on the Provincial Courts and much of its routine work was badly
affected.
 To solve this problem now John Shore introduced change in matters
of appeals. Now appeals from the decisions of the munsif’s court
were to be taken to the Mofussil Diwani Adalat instead of the
Provincial Court of Appeal and the decision of Diwani Adalat was
final.
 In order to strengthen the control of Sadar Diwani Adalat over the
lower court, a provision was made in Regulation XXXVII of 1795 that
the Registrar of the Mofussil Diwani Adalat shall maintain a register
stating therein the details about the disposal of cases and those
pending in arrears.
 Another significant change introduced by Regulation XXXVII of 1795
was restoration of court fees to discourage superfluous and vexatious
litigation.
 It is significant to note that court fees were not only imposed on
prospective litigants but it operated retrospectively even on those
cases which were pending decisions in lower-courts. The result, as
 expected, was that many pending suits were dismissed for non-
payment of court fees by the parties. However, it was alleged that the
litigants living in the interior areas were not adequately informed
about the re-imposition of the court fees hence they could not remit
the court fees within the prescribed time. The schedule of court fees
was subsequently revised in 1797 when the rates of fees were
enhanced. Though this change brought about a decrease in the
number of suits in lower courts, the measure was criticized on the
ground that many genuine litigants were deprived of their right to seek
justice on account of their inability to deposit the court fee. While on
the other hand, wealthy and well-to-do persons could bring vexatious
claims in the court as they could easily afford to pay the requisite
court fees.
 In 1795, Sir John Shore introduced the Adalat System in the Province
of Banaras with the consent of Hindu Raja of Banaras.
 The system was more or less on the Bengal model. He enacted a set
of fifteen Regulations. The Province of Banaras was divided into four
districts each having a Diwani Adalat. A. Provincial Courts of Appeal
was established at Banaras which was also to act as the Court of
Circuit for the trial of criminal offences. The Courts of munsifs and
Registrars were also established in the province
 An appeal from this Court could be preferred to the Sadar Nizamat
Adalat at Calcutta.
 The jurisdiction of the Sadar Adalat at Calcutta was extended to
Banaras to include it under its jurisdiction.
 The noteworthy feature of the judicial scheme introduced in Banaras
was that it extended certain special favour to Brahmins in matters of
application of criminal law on account of their privileged position and
respectable status in the society.
 The Regulation XVI specially provided that no Brahmin shall be
punished with death sentence. In cases where an ordinary person
would be sentenced to death, in case of a Brahmin, it shall be
commuted to one of transportation for life by the Sadar Nizamat
Adalat. The Court of Circuit was not empowered to pass any sentence
in such a case, but it had to forward it to the Sadar Nizamat Adalat for
final sentencing
CHANGES IN 1796
 In 1796, a minor change was introduced whereby the Registrars of
the District Diwani Adalat and the city courts were authorized to
officiate as the Judge of the Diwani Adalat in absence of the latter.
 The Regulation also prescribed various punishments for evasion of
the process of the District Magistrate and the City Magistrate.
 The Judges were required to follow the provisions of the
Mohammedan law of crimes only in cases where it went in favour of
the accused. However, where the Mohammedan law provided for
blood money, the Judges were to award imprisonment even for life.
 However, the punishment of transportation beyond seas and
branding the name of crime on the forehead of the accused was
authorized. Persons charged with perjury were severely punished.
CHANGES IN 1797
 Sir John Shore tried to modify the Judicial Plan of 1793 by increasing
the court fee further. For filing suit in a court of law the parties were
required to use special stamped papers.
 The decisions of the Provincial Court of Appeal relating to personal
property up to Rs. 5000/- were final and in cases exceeding this
amount an appeal was allowed to the Sadar Diwani Adalat. However,
in case of real property, an appeal from the Provincial Court of Appeal
could be preferred to the Sadar Diwani Adalat if the value of the suit
exceeded Rs. 1,000/- If the value of the suit was £ 5000 or more, an
appeal from Sadar Diwani Adalat could be moved to the King-in-
Council within a period of six months.
 In order to implement some changes in the administration of justice
in India, the British Parliament issued an Act in 1797.
 The lending of money by Europeans to the native princes at
exorbitant rates brought down the image of the company in the eyes
of people. Therefore, this practice was banned by Section 28 of the
Act of 1797 and any violation of this law entailed heavy punishment.
 Another major change introduced by the Act of 1797 was that the
number of the Judges of the Supreme Court at Calcutta was reduced
to three including the Chief Justice.
 The Act also authorized the power of local legislation in the
Presidency of Bengal.
 The Act also provided that all regulations enacted by the Governor-
General and Council at Calcutta affecting natives, should be
registered in the judicial department in the form of systematic codes
and the Provincial Courts were bound by these Regulations. The
copies of the Regulations so passed were to be sent to the Court of
Directors and the Board of Control in England.
Common Reference

h ps://www.lawcolumn.in/administra on-of-jus ce-in-madras-

bombay-and-calcu a/
h ps://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/ar cle-84-administra on-of-
jus ce-in-madras-bombay-calcu a-1600-1726-.html
h ps://www.academia.edu/35189464/History_of_Judiciary_System_i
n_Madras
h ps://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/ar cle-84-administra on-of-
jus ce-in-madras-bombay-calcu a-1600-1726-.html
h ps://www.lawcolumn.in/judicial-reforms-of-john-shore/
h ps://www.academia.edu/8257467/lord_Cornwallis_to_minimizing
_conflicts_by_judicial_reform
h ps://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-reforms-brought-lord-cornwallis/
h ps://deepakmiglani.com/judicial-plan-of-1790-and-1793/