Administration of Justice in Madras,

Bombay, Calcutta (1600-1726)

Submitted to Submitted by

Mr. Praveen Vidyarthi V, 85221030

Chettinad School of Law Chettinad School of Law

1
 INDEX

Administration of Justice in Madras……………………………….03

Madras………………………………………………………………03
First phase 1639–1678…………………………………………………03

Second phase 1678 –1683…………………………………………….04

Third phase 1683 –1726……………………………………………….05

Administration of Justice in Presidencies……………………………..05

Administration of Justice in Bombay……………………………….07

Bombay………………………………………………………………..07

First phase 1668 – 1683……………………………………………….07

Second phase 1684 – 1690…………………………………………….08

Third Phase 1718 – 1726………………………………………………08

Administration of Justice in Calcutta………………………………09

Calcutta………………………………………………………………………09

Conclusion……………………………………………………………11

2
Administration of Justice in Madras, Bombay, Calcutta (1600-1726)

Administration of Justice in Madras:

Madras:
It was developed in three stages.
They are:
Stage I: 1639 – 1678
Stage II: 1678 – 1683
Stage III: 1683 – 1726

1639–1678:
In 1639, an Englishman, Francis Day acquired a piece of land from Hindu Raja of
Chandragiri, for the East India Company. It was known as Madraspatnam. The company
constructed a factory on this land called FORT ST. GEORGE in 1640. This Fort was known
as WHITE TOWN. While the nearby villages inhabited by local population was called
BLACK TOWN.

Agent and Council:

In the White Town, the agent and council were authorised to decide both civil and criminal
cases of English people residing at Fort St. George. Judiciary was vague. So they referred
the cases to England.

Choultry Court:
The primitive and native Choultry Court functioned there. This court was presided with a
native judicial officer called ADIKARI. It have not tried serious offences like murder but
tried other cases only.

Governor and Council:

By the Charter of 1661, the company was empowered to appoint Governor and Council to
decide civil and criminal cases of all persons of the company. English rule was followed.

3
1678 – 1683:
High Court of Judicature:
The Governor reorganised the whole judicial system in 1678. They sat twice a week and
tried civil and criminal cases with the help of 12 juries. They tried appeals from the Choultry
Court.

Choultry Court:
Old Choultry Court was reconstituted. Adikari was replaced by three English Officers. They
sat twice a week and tried all civil cases up to the value of 50 pagodas. Their decision was
appealable to the GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL.

1683 – 1726:
Admiralty Court:
This court was established in Madras in 1686 by the Charter of 1683 headed by JUDGE
ADVOCATE. It consisted of one person learned in civil law and two merchants appointed
by the company. The court decided,
all cases of mercantile or maritime nature, trespass, injuries and wrongs committed on high
seas, forfeiture and seizure of ships or goods.

This court applied the rules of equity, good conscience and the laws and customs of
merchants. This court becomes the general court of the city for all practical purposes in
setting all civil and criminal cases. This court functioned till 1704.

Mayor’s Court:
The Company’s Charter of 1687 established a Mayor’s Court at Madras. It consisted of a
Mayor, twelve Aldermen and sixty or more Burgesses. The first Mayor and Aldermen were
nominated by the Charter. The Mayor holds office for one year. Aldermen elected the
Mayor annually. The Mayor and Aldermen selected Burgesses whose strength was not to
exceed 120. The Mayor and three Aldermen were to be English servants of the company and
others were to be from any nation.

A man learned law called Recorder was attacked to Mayor’s Court. (Court of reward). All
civil cases up to the value of 3 pagodas. All criminal cases with the help of jury and punished
the offenders by fine or imprisonment.

4
Appeals were allowed to the Admiralty Court. In civil matters, the Admiralty Court had
decided more than the value of 3 pagodas. In criminal cases, it had decided when the
punishment was to lose life or limbs.
Appeals from the Mayor’s Court and Admiralty Court were heard by Governor and Council.

The Charter of 1726 established Mayor’s Court at Madras, Bombay and Calcutta consisted of
a Mayor and 9 Aldermen. Mayor and 7 Aldermen were to be English and the rest were
subjects of princely Indian States friendly with Britain. The Mayor holds office for one year.
The Aldermen hold office for lifelong. Every year the outgoing Mayor and Aldermen elected
a new Mayor out of the Aldermen. The Mayor and Aldermen filled up the vacancy of
Aldermen from among the inhabitants of the Presidency Town. The Governor in Council
could dismiss the Aldermen on reasonable ground.

This court tried only civil matters. It granted probation of wills and letters of administration
in case of intestate. During the proceedings the parties were required to take oath produce
and examine witnesses and plead their cases.

Sheriff was appointed by Governor and Council. It is his duty to produce the defendant in the
court if a written complaint was filed by an aggrieved party. He executed judgments as in
English Law.
Governor in Council heard appeals from the Mayor’s Courts up to the value of 1000 pagodas.

Privy Council:
If the value of the suit was more than 1000 pagodas a second appeal was permitted to this
court.

Administration of Justice in Presidencies:

Justice of Peace:
The Governor and 5 senior members of the Council would have criminal jurisdiction and
would be justice of peace.

5
Some cases were finalized in these courts:
Arab Merchant’s Case:
An Arab Merchant brought a suit in the Mayor’s Court for the recovery of the valuable pearls
which were alleged to have been escorted from him by a man who saved him from the
burning boat at the coast of Gujarat. The Mayor’s Court consulted the Governor in Council.
The Governor upheld the jurisdiction of the Mayor’s Court. It suggested the Mayor’s Court
not to try the case as the defendant had been previously hired for piracy regarding the same
occurrence and acquitted. The Mayor’s Court ignored this and decreed the suit. This was
reversed by the Governor.

Hindu Woman’s Case: (1730)

A 12 year old boy (Hindu) left his mother and began to live with his relatives, since his
mother became Roman Catholic in Bombay. The mother filed a suit for the custody of the
boy in the Mayor’s Court. The Court ordered the relatives to hand over the boy to his
mother. On a complaint filed by the head of the caste, the Governor in Council held that the
Mayor’s Court had no power to decide cases of religious nature or caste disputes of the
natives. The Governor removed the Mayor from his office.

Pagoda Oath Case:

In Madras, Hindus gave evidence in the Court on Bhagwad Geetha Oath. Two Hindu
Merchants were put to jail by the Mayor’s Court for refusing to take the pagoda oath which
they said was contrary to their religion and the rules of the castle. This made the Hindu
Residents very furious and they approach the Governor to interfere. So Governor released
those merchant on parole. At the same time the Court was directed to pay regard to the
religious rites and ceremonies of the natives.

Re-electing as Mayor Case:

In 1734, a conflict arose over the Mayor’s re-election. Naish was re-elected as Mayor but the
Governor refused to allow him to take the Oath of Office on the ground that an outgoing
Mayor could not be re-elected under the Charter of 1726. Ultimately another Mayor was to
be elected.

6
Mayor and Secretary Betting Case:
Terrain the Secretary to the Madras Government and Mayor Naish met at a dinner party and
entered into a bet which Naish lost and refused to pay. Terrain sued him in the Mayor’s
Court which ruled that Mayor was immune from prosecution. The Government later
complained that its secretary had been treated with indignity by the Court.

Administration of Justice in Bombay

Bombay:
It was under the control of the Portuguese from 1534 onwards. Portuguese King gave it as a
dowry to Charles II of England when he married the formers sister in 1661. King leased it to
the company.

The Judicial Administration developed in three stages.

They are:
Stage I: 1668 – 1683
Stage II: 1684 – 1690
Stage III: 1718 – 1726

1668 – 1683:
Judicial Reforms of 1670:
Gerald Aungier reorganised the old judicial setup of Bombay and all laws were classified into
six sections. They are related to the freedom of worship and religious believes
impartial administration of justice establishment of a court of Judicature to decide all criminal
cases and for the appointment of justice of peace and order, to arrest criminals registration of
transactions concerning sale of land and houses contained miscellaneous provisions dealt
with penalties for different crimes military discipline and prevention of disorder and revolt.
Bombay was divided into two divisions. Each division had a court of five Judges. The
customs officer of each division, an Englishman presided this court.

7
Quorum of this Court: Three Judges
They sat once a week and tried petty civil and criminal cases up to the value of two xerophins
(A Portuguese coin equal to nearly Rs. 7.50).

New Judicial Plan of 1672:

All cases were tried according to English Law. Central Court of Judicature was established
and presided by a single Judge – sat once a week and tried all civil, criminal and testamentary
cases. Justice of Peace – Bombay was divided into four divisions. Each headed by an
Englishman called Justice of Peace. He acted as committing magistrate, recorded the
necessary proceedings and sent the accused to the Court of Judicature for trial. The appellate
authority was Deputy Governor and Council. Court of Conscience was established. It sat
once a week. It decided petty cases summarily without charging fees from the litigants.

1684 – 1690:
Admiralty Court was established which was similar to that of Madras.

1718 – 1726:
Court of Judicature:
It consisted of a Chief Justice and nine Judges. The Chief Justice and five Judges were to be
English. Others were to be of any other nation. The quorum was three English Judges. This
court sat once a week and tried all civil, criminal, testamentary cases as per law, equity, good
conscience and rules and ordinance of the company from time to time. Appeal was heard by
the Governor and Council.

8
Administration of Justice in Calcutta:

Calcutta:
In 1690, the English Merchants founded a settlement at Sutanati, a site where future Calcutta
developed. In 1698, they secured Zamindari rights over Sutanati, Calcutta and Gobindpur.
The company established Fort William at Calcutta in 1700. Calcutta became a Presidency
with the Governor and Council to manage its affairs. A member of the Council was
appointed as Collector to act as Zamindar on behalf of the company in 1700.

Faujdari Court:
The Collector decided criminal cases of the natives of three villages – Sutanati, Gobindpur
and Calcutta. The criminals were punished by whipping, imposing fines, imprisonment,
banishment or work on roads. Capital punishment was given only after confirmation by the
Governor in Council.

Justice administered by Local Zamindars:

Each Zamindar (Collectors) held a cutcherry or Adalat and decided all civil cases according
to the customs of the country. Appeals from this Court lay to the Nawab’s Court at
Murshidabad. Death sentences had to be confirmed by the Nawab who is a native governor
during the time of the Mughal Empire.

Administration of Justice in Fort William (Calcutta):

After acquiring zamindari rights, the company assumed the functions of zamindars.
 Under the Mughal ruler the zamindars were responsible for collecting land revenue
and maintaining law and order in their zamindari.
 The administration of civil and criminal justice was managed by separate courts but
with the disintegration of Mughal empire, these courts ceased to function and taking
advantage of this situation the zamindars took administration of justice in their own
hands
 Each Zamindar held a court called ‘Cutcherry’ to decide civil case. Appeals from this
court lay to the court of Nawabs Court at Murshidabad. Capital punishment was to be
awarded by the Zamindar’s court but it was subject to confirmation by the Nawab’s
court at Murshidabad.

9
 The East India Company appointed an English member of the Governor’s Council as
‘Collector’ in 1700 who was responsible for collecting taxes and decide civil and
criminal matters of the native inhabitants.
 The English Collector maintained a Fouzdari court for the administration of criminal
justice. The trials were held in a summary manner without the help of jury. The
common modes of punishment which could be awarded were whipping,
imprisonment, fine, banishment, work on roads etc. The execution of death sentence,
however required the confirmation of President and Council and due process of death
sentence was to be followed, that is death sentence can be awarded by whipping and
not by hanging. Regarding the offences committed by Englishmen, the Collector
could only take cognizance of only petty crimes and misdemeanours committed by
them and the serious offences could be tried by President and Council.
 The Collector decided civil cases in his court called ‘Cutcherry’. The case decided in
a summary manner according to the customs and usages of the native individuals, and
in their absence, according to the principles of equity and good conscience. An appeal
from this court could lay down to the President and Council.
 It is to be noted that the appeal from the English Collector’s court was not to be taken
to Nawab’s court but was to taken to the President and Council in both civil and
criminal matters which shows that the company as Zamindar exercised much more
power in comparison to local native Zamindar. However, this system continued only
till 1727 when a mayor’s court under the Royal Grant of 1726 was established at Fort
William.

10
CONCLUSION:
To sum up, it may be stated that the administration of justice in the settlements of the East
India Company before 1726 had no demarcations between executive and judiciary which
resulted in overlapping of functions and sometimes in resulted in conflict between executive
and judiciary showing superiority on one another. Other characteristics feature of the judicial
administration before 1726 was lack of professional’s judges in the court. Though some
efforts were made when a person well-versed in law was appointed as Judge-Advocate in
Madras and Bombay but the experiment was not encouraging and the company was reluctant
to appoint lawyers as judges in its courts. Yet another aspect of the administration of justice
was the judgements delivered by the Company’s court was not recognized by the courts in
England as the judges of the company court were laymen and had no knowledge of law and
legal procedure and hence their judgements were mostly erratic and controversial. That apart,
the judicial system in the company court lacked uniformity and certainty as each settlement
had its own judicial arrangement quite distinct from others. These problems were only solved
when charter of 1726 was passed by the Crown which set up mayor’s court in each
presidency town. It may be stated that the administration of justice in the settlements of the
East India Company before 1726 was essentially executive oriented. There was no separation
between the executive and the Judiciary and the executive enjoyed overriding power to
appoint or remove the judges. Thus, Judiciary was subordinate to the executive. This position
prevailed in all the settlements of the company namely Surat, Madras, Bombay and Calcutta.
Judges was known professionals and did not possess adequate knowledge of law.

11