The Administration of Justice
In India, the administration of civil justice was closely associated with the management of revenue, and the grant of Diwani rights in 1765 comprised both these functions. As in the case of revenue, repeated experiments were made before a definite system of administration of justice was evolved. These experiments were closely connected with, and may be said to form almost an essential part of, those in connection with the land-revenue. In any case, both passed through the same process of evolution, and the judicial system at each stage during this experimental period can only be understood with reference to the system of revenue administration.
The question was first definitely taken up in 1772. Two courts were established in each district, the Diwani Adalat with a civil and the Faujdari Adalat with a criminal jurisdiction. In addition to these, two superior courts were established in Calcutta, viz. Sadar Diwani Adalat, as a court of appeal in civil, and Sadar Nizamat AdaIat for revising and confirming sentences. The Diwani Adalat in each district was in charge of the Collector, and the Sadar Diwani Adalat was presided over by the President and members of council. The courts remained in charge of Indian judges, according to old customs and precedents, but the Collectors and the Council exercised some control respectively over the district courts and the Sadar Nizamat Adalat.
The changes in the system of revenue administration in 1773, 1781 and 1786 brought about corresponding changes in the administration of justice. In 1774 the district courts were placed in charge of Indian officers called Amils. An appeal lay from their decision to the Provincial Councils and, in important cases, from them to the Sadar Diwani Adalat. In 1775 the Sadar Nizamat Adalat was transferred to Murshidabad and placed in charge of the Naib-Nazim. A Faujdar was appointed in each district to bring criminals to justice.
In 1780 the judicial powers of the six Provincial Councils were transferred to six courts of Diwani Adalat each presided over by a covenanted servant of the Company. In 1781 the number of these courts was increased to eighteen and all civil cases were tried by them. In other words, the old district courts under European supervision were revived. But except in four districts, where the Collector presided over these courts, they were placed under separate judges. Their decision was final up to 1,000 rupees, but where the amount in dispute was larger, an appeal lay to the Sadar Diwani Adalat. At the same time the Faujdari system of 1775 was abolished and the powers and duties of the Faujdar were transferred to the judges of the district courts. The criminals were, however, tried in the Faujdari or criminal courts under Indian judges, under the ultimate control of the Naib-Nazim at Murshidabad.
In the meanwhile a new element had been introduced by the establishment of the Supreme Court in Calcutta, in 1774, by virtue of the Regulating Act. This court, established by the Crown and consisting of a Chief Justice and three Puisne Judges, was vested with jurisdiction over British subjects only, but in practice it led to enormous difficulties. The court claimed, and actually did exercise, jurisdiction over all persons, and not only ignored the authority of the Company’s courts but even entertained cases against the judges and officers of these courts for acts done in their official capacity. The legal principles and procedure which they followed were foreign to India and extremely vexatious. The Select Committee very truly observed that ” the court has been generally terrible to the natives and has distracted the government of the Company”. The pretensions of the Supreme Court reached their climax in the famous Cosijura Case, which brought the matter to a head. A judge of the Supreme Court issued a writ against a zamindar, the Raja of Cosijura but the Supreme Council denied the right of the Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction over a zamindar, as he was neither a British subject nor a servant of a British subject. Accordingly when the officers of the Supreme Court proceeded to arrest the zamindar, the Council sent sepoys to arrest them. There was thus an almost open war between the highest executive and judicial authorities in Bengal. But a final catastrophe was averted by an ingenious device of Hastings’. He appointed Impey, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as President of the Sadar Diwani Adalat, with a high salary, and the tension was immediately relieved.
This procedure, which is usually regarded as a bribe to Impey, was open to serious objections. One of the avowed objects for creating the Supreme Court was to have any complaints against the Company’s servants dealt with by an independent tribunal. This object obviously could not be fulfilled so long as the head of the Supreme Court held office, with high emoluments, at the pleasure of the Governor-General and Council. The only relieving feature in this otherwise dark picture is that, apart from putting an end to the deadlock, it made the Sadar Diwani Adalat, the highest appellate court in the province, a much more efficient institution than it could ever have been under the presidency of the Governor-General, who had little time, and perhaps less knowledge of law, to enable him to discharge the duties of the high office in a satisfactory manner.
But this arrangement was upset by the Home authorities. Impey had to refund the salary and was impeached. A new Statute passed in 1781 defined more clearly the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, exempting from it the official acts of the Governor-General and Council, the zamindars or farmers, and alI matters concerning revenue collection.
During the period of Cornwallis’ administration, important changes were made in all branches of administration, including the judicial system. In 1787 the district courts were again placed under the Collectors except in Dacca, Patna and Murshidabad. The Collectors were vested with the powers of a magistrate and could try criminal cases within certain limits. The more important criminal cases were tried, as before, in district criminal courts and Sadar Nizamat Adalat. The Collectors could not deal with revenue cases, which were transferred to the Board of Revenue.
Further changes were introduced in 1790. The experiment of making the Board of Revenue responsible for revenue cases proved a failure, and new local courts were instituted in each district under the Collector for trying these cases. Most far-reaching changes were made in the administration of criminal justice. The Sadar Nizamat Adalat was again removed from Murshidabad to Calcutta (it had been done once before by Hastings) and in the place of a Muhammadan judge it was presided over by the Governor-General and Council, assisted by experts in Indian laws. The district criminal courts were abolished and their place was taken by four courts of circuit, established at Calcutta, Murshidabad, Patna and Dacca. These courts were presided over by two servants of the Company, assisted by Indian experts, and they were to tour through the area of their jurisdictions twice every year. The powers of the Collectors, as magistrates, were further increased. They were made responsible for the custody of the prisoners and execution of the sentences passed on them by the four provincial criminal courts.
The famous Cornwallis Code of May, 1793, partly by defining the chances already made and partly by introducing new ones, ushered in the system which formed the steel frame of British Indian administration. The changes proceeded on two principles. First, the necessity of reducing the multifarious duties of the Collector, which gave him almost unlimited authority and made him the sole representative of British authority in a district. Accordingly the Collector was divested of all judicial and magisterial powers, which devolved upon a new class of officers called Judges. The separate revenue courts for each district as well as the judicial powers of the Board of Revenue were abolished and the Judge tried all civil cases.
In addition to the twenty-three district courts and three city courts in Patna, Dacca and Murshidabad a large number of courts of lower grade were also set up to cope with the business. The lowest court was that of Munsiffs which could try cases up to 50 rupees. Next was that of the Registrars, a class of officials attached to the Zila courts, who could try cases up to 200 rupees. From the decisions of all these courts an appeal lay to the district court.
The four provincial courts of circuit set up in 1790 were reorganized. Each of them now contained three, instead of two, English judges, and not only served as criminal courts of circuit as before, but also heard appeals from the decisions of the district judges. From them appeals lay in more important cases to the Sadar Diwani Adalat in Calcutta. In order to curb the authority of the Collectors still further and to protect Indians from oppression at their hands, the Collectors and all the officers of the Government were “made amenable to the courts, or acts done in their official capacities”, and even Government itself in case of any dispute with its subjects over property had to “submit its rights to be tried in these courts under the existing laws and regulations”
The second principle on which Cornwallis proceeded was to divest the Indians of any real authority or responsibility in matters of administration. He had already deprived them of any real power in the administration of criminal justice, over which they had formerly supreme and almost absolute control. He now deprived the zamindars of the power and responsibility of maintaining peace within their jurisdiction. They were forced to disband their police forces, and their duties were entrusted to a number of Darogas in every district, each working within a defined area under the direct supervision of the Magistrate.
The net result of the changes introduced by Cornwallis was to divide the entire administrative work in a district between two European officers, one acting as a Collector of revenue, and the other as a Judge and Magistrate. Indians were deliberately excluded from offices involving trust and responsibility.,
