constitutional set up of east India company

8/11/2019 constitutional set up of east India company

1/20

ORGANISATIONAL SET UP OF EAST INDIA COMPANY

[Type text] Page 1

AA PPRROOJJEECCTT

OORRGGAANNIISSAATTIIOONNAALLSSEETTUUPPOOFFEEAASSTTIINNDDIIAACCOOMMPPAANNYY

SSUUBBJJEECCTT::--LLEEGGAALLHHIISSTTOORRYY

SSUUBBMMIITTTTEEDDTTOO::--DDrr..PPRRIIYYAADDAARRSSHHNNII

SSUUBBMMIITTTTEEDDBBYY::-- BBHHAANNUUPPRRAATTAAPP

RROOLLLLNNOO::-- 992211 ((22nndd SSeemmeesstteerr))

CCHHAANNAAKKYYAANNAATTIIOONNAALLLLAAWWUUNNIIVVEERRSSIITTYY

PPAATTNNAA


2/20


[Type text] Page 2

AACCKKNNOOWWLLEEDDGGEEMMEENNTT

IIffeeeellmmyysseellffhhiigghhllyyddeelliigghhtteedd,,aassiittggiivveessmmeeiinnccrreeddiibblleepplleeaassuurreettoopprreesseennttaarreesseeaarrcchhwwoorrkkoonn


IIwwoouullddlliikkeettooeennlliigghhtteennmmyyrreeaaddeerrssrreeggaarrddiinnggtthhiissttooppiiccaannddIIhhooppeeIIhhaavveettrriieeddmmyybbeessttttoo

ppaavveetthheewwaayyffoorrbbrriinnggiinnggmmoorreelluummiinnoossiittyyttootthhiissttooppiicc..

IIaammggrraatteeffuullttoommyyffaaccuullttyyDDrr..PPRRIIYYAADDAARRSSHHNNIIwwhhoohhaassggiivveennmmeeaanniiddeeaaaanndd

eennccoouurraaggeemmeettoovveennttuurreetthhiisspprroojjeecctt..IIwwoouullddlliikkeettootthhaannkklliibbrraarriiaannooffCCNNLLUUffoorrtthheeiirr

iinntteerreessttiinnpprroovviiddiinnggmmeeaaggooooddbbaacckkuuppmmaatteerriiaall

AAttffiinnaallllyyyyeettiimmppoorrttaannttllyyIIwwoouullddlliikkeettootthhaannkkmmyyppaarreennttssffoorrtthheeffiinnaanncciiaallssuuppppoorrtt..

BBHHAANNUUPPRRAATTAAPP


3/20


[Type text] Page 3

AA II MM SS AA NN DD OO BB JJ EE CC TT II VV EE

To examine the dominance of English laws in India.

To examine the strengthening the political powers of East India

Company through several charters and acts.

RREE SS EE AA RRCC HH MM EE TT HH OO DD OO LL OO GG YY

FFoorr tthhee ppuurrppoossee ooff rreesseeaarrcchh,, tthhee rreesseeaarrcchheerr wwiillll bbee rreellyyiinngg oonn vvaarriioouuss

ssoouurrcceess ii..ee.. pprriimmaarryy aanndd sseeccoonnddaarryy ssoouurrcceess ttoo llooookk ffoorr iinnffoorrmmaattiioonn

rreellaatteeddttootthheeOORRGGAANNIISSAATTIIOONNAALLSSEETTUUPPOOFFEEAASSTTIINNDDIIAACCOOMMPPAANNYY

TThhiisspprroojjeecctthhaassbbeeeennddoonneeaafftteerraa tthhoorroouugghhrreesseeaarrcchhbbaasseedduuppoonniinnttrriinnssiiccaanndd

eexxttrriinnssiicc aassppeeccttss ooff tthhee pprroojjeecctt.. TThhee rreesseeaarrcchheerr wwiillll bbee ddooiinngg hhiiss rreesseeaarrcchh

kkeeeeppiinngghhiissmmiinnddtthheevvaarriioouussqquueessttiioonnssrreellaatteeddttootthhiissttooppiicc..

SSoouurrcceessooffDDaattaa::

TThhee rreesseeaarrcchheerr wwiillll uussee tthhee DDooccttrriinnaall mmeetthhoodd rreesseeaarrcchh.. TThhee ffoolllloowwiinngg

sseeccoonnddaarryyssoouurrcceessooffddaattaahhaavveebbeeeennuusseeddiinntthheepprroojjeecctt--

11..AArrttiicclleess..

22..BBooookkss

33..

JJoouurrnnaallss

44..WWeebbssiitteess


4/20


[Type text] Page 4

TTAABBLLEEOOFFCCOONNTTEENNTTSS

SS..NNoo.. CCHHAAPPTTEERRSS PPAAGGEENNoo..

11..

22..

33..

44..

55..

IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

Formation of it throughActs introduce by East India

Company for establishment of their empire in India

Judicial reform brought by them for strengthening the

administration of justice

CCaasseessHHeeaarrddBByyEEaassttIInnddiieessDDuurriinnggTThhiissEErraa

CCoonncclluussiioonn

BBiibblliiooggrraapphhyy

**************************************************************

55

88

1111

1144

1188

2200


5/20


[Type text] Page 5

IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

1TheEnglish East India Company (hereafter, the Company) was founded in 1600, as The

Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies. It gained a foothold in India in1612 afterMughal emperorJahangir granted it the rights to establish afactory,or trading post, in

the port ofSurat on the western coast. In 1640, after receiving similar permission fromtheVijayanagara ruler farther south, a second factory was established inMadras on the

southeastern coast.Bombay island, not far from Surat, a former Portuguese outpost giftedtoEngland asdowry in the marriage ofCatherine of Braganza toCharles II, was leased by the

Company in 1668. Two decades later, the Company established a presence on the eastern coast

as well; far up that coast, in theGanges river delta, a factory was set up inCalcutta.Since, duringthis time other companiesestablished by thePortuguese,Dutch,French, andDanishwere

similarly expanding in the region, the English Company's unremarkable beginnings oncoastal

India offered no clues to what would become a lengthy presence on theIndian subcontinent.The

Company's victory under Andrea Bustamante andRobert Clivepower in the 1757Battle ofPlassey and another victory in the 1764Battle of Buxar (inBihar), consolidated the Company's

power, and forced emperorShah Alam II to appoint it thediwan,or revenue collector, ofBengal,Bihar, andOrissa. The Company thus became the de facto ruler of large ares of the lowerGangetic plainby 1773. It also proceeded by degrees to expand its dominions around Bombay

and Madras. TheAnglo-Mysore Wars(17661799) and theAnglo-Maratha Wars (17721818)

left it in control of large areas of India south of the Sutlej River.With the defeat of theMarathas,no native power represented a threat for the Company any longer. The end of the last Anglo-

Maratha War in 1818 marked the era of British paramountcy over India. The proliferation of the

Company's power chiefly took two forms. The first of these was the outright annexation of

Indian states and subsequent direct governance of the underlying regions, which collectivelycame to compriseBritish India. The annexed regions included theNorth-Western

Provinces (comprisingRohilkhand,Gorakhpur, and theDoab) (1801), Delhi (1803), Assam

(Ahom Kingdom 1828), andSindh (1843).Punjab,North-West Frontier Province,andKashmir,were annexed after theAnglo-Sikh Wars in 1849; however, Kashmir was immediately sold

under the Treaty of Amritsar (1850) to theDogra Dynasty ofJammu, and thereby became a

princely state. In 1854Berar was annexed, and the state ofOudh two years later. The second

form of asserting power involved treaties in which Indian rulers acknowledged theCompany'shegemony in return for limited internalautonomy. Since the Company operated

under financial constraints, it had to set up political underpinnings for its rule. The most

important such support came from thesubsidiary alliances with Indian princes during the first 75years of Company rule. In the early 19th century, the territories of these princes accounted for

two-third of India. When an Indian ruler, who was able to secure his territory, wanted to enter

such an alliance, the Company welcomed it as an economical method of indirect rule, which did

not involve the economic costs of direct administration or the political costs of gaining thesupport of alien subjects. In return, the Company undertook the "defence of these subordinate

allies and treated them with traditional respect and marks of honor." Subsidiary alliances created

1://www.lawyersclubindia.com accused on 17/04/2014 at 4:21.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_East_India_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahangirhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_(trading_post)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayanagara_Empirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Englandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Braganzahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Englandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges_riverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcuttahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_East_India_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_East_India_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Clivehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plasseyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plasseyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Buxarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biharhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Alam_IIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diwan_(title)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odishahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Gangetic_plains_moist_deciduous_forestshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Gangetic_plains_moist_deciduous_forestshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Mysore_Warshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Maratha_Warshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutlej_Riverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Empirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-Western_Provinceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-Western_Provinceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohilkhandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorakhpurhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doabhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahom_Kingdomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindhhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_regionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-West_Frontier_Province_(1901%E2%80%931955)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmirhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Sikh_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amritsar,_1846http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogra_Dynastyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammuhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berar_Provincehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awadhhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary_alliancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary_alliancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awadhhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berar_Provincehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammuhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogra_Dynastyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amritsar,_1846http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Sikh_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmirhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-West_Frontier_Province_(1901%E2%80%931955)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_regionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindhhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahom_Kingdomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doabhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorakhpurhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohilkhandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-Western_Provinceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-Western_Provinceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Empirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutlej_Riverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Maratha_Warshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Mysore_Warshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Gangetic_plains_moist_deciduous_forestshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Gangetic_plains_moist_deciduous_forestshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odishahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diwan_(title)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Alam_IIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biharhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Buxarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plasseyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plasseyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Clivehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_East_India_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_East_India_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcuttahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges_riverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Englandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Braganzahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Englandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayanagara_Empirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_(trading_post)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahangirhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_East_India_Company


6/20


[Type text] Page 6

theprincely states, of the Hindumaharajas and the Muslimnawabs. Prominent among the

princely states

were:Cochin (1791),Jaipur (1794),Travancore (1795),Hyderabad (1798),Mysore (1799),Cis-Sutlej Hill States (1815),Central India Agency (1819),Cutch andGujarat Gaikwad

territories (1819),Rajputana (1818), andBahawalpur (1833). UntilClive's victory atPlassey,

the East India Company territories in India, which consisted largely of thepresidency towns ofCalcutta, Madras, and Bombay, were governed by the mostly autonomousand sporadicallyunmanageabletown councils, all composed of merchants. The councils barely had enough

powers for the effective management of their local affairs, and the ensuing lack of oversight of

the overall Company operations in India led to some grave abuses by Company officers or theirallies. Clive's victory, and the award of the diwani of the rich region of Bengal, brought India

into the public spotlight in Britain. The Company's money management practices came to be

questioned, especially as it began to post net losses even as some Company servants, the

"Nabobs," returned to Britain with large fortunes, whichaccording to rumors then currentwere acquired unscrupulously. By 1772, the Company needed British government loans to stay

afloat, and there was fear in London that the Company's corrupt practices could soon seep into

British business and public life. The rights and duties of the British government with regards theCompany's new territories came also to be examined.2The British parliament then held several

inquiries and in 1773, during the premiership ofLord North,enacted theRegulating Act,which

established regulations, its long title stated, "for the better Management of the Affairs of the East

India Company, as well in India as in Europe" AlthoughLord North himself wanted theCompany's territories to be taken over by the British state, he faced determined political

opposition from many quarters, including some in the City of London and the British

parliament. The result was a compromise in which the Regulating Actalthough implying theultimate sovereignty of theBritish Crown over these new territoriesasserted that the Company

could act as a sovereign power on behalf of the Crown. It could do this while concurrently being

subject to oversight and regulation by the British government and parliament. The Court of

Directors of the Company were required under the Act to submit all communications regardingcivil, military, and revenue matters in India for scrutiny by the British government. For the

governance of the Indian territories, the act asserted the supremacy of thePresidency of Fort

William (Bengal) over those ofFort St. George (Madras) andBombay.It also nominatedaGovernor-General (Warren Hastings) and four councilors for administering the Bengal

presidency (and for overseeing the Company's operations in India). "The subordinate

Presidencies were forbidden to wage war or make treaties without the previous consent of theGovernor-General of Bengal in Council, except in case of imminent necessity. The Governors of

these Presidencies were directed in general terms to obey the orders of the Governor-General-in-

Council, and to transmit to him intelligence of all important matters." However, the imprecise

wording of the Act, left it open to be variously interpreted; consequently, the administration inIndia continued to be hobbled by disunity between the provincial governors, between members

of the Council, and between the Governor-General himself and his Council. The Regulating

Act also attempted to address the prevalent corruption in India: Company servants were

henceforth forbidden to engage in private trade in India or to receive "presents" from Indiannationals. William Pitt's India Act of 1784 established a Board of Control in England both to

2B.S. Chowdhary studies in judicial history of British India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharajahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawabhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Cochinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaipur_Statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travancorehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad_Statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Mysorehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-Sutlej_stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-Sutlej_stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_India_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutch_Statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroda_Statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroda_Statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajputanahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahawalpur_(princely_state)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Clivehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plasseyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_North,_Lord_Northhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulating_Act_of_1773http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Northhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crownhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Hastingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pitt_the_Youngerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_Act_1784http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_Act_1784http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pitt_the_Youngerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Hastingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crownhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Northhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulating_Act_of_1773http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_North,_Lord_Northhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plasseyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Clivehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahawalpur_(princely_state)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajputanahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroda_Statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroda_Statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutch_Statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_India_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-Sutlej_stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-Sutlej_stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Mysorehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad_Statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travancorehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaipur_Statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Cochinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawabhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharajahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_States


7/20


[Type text] Page 7

supervise the East India Company's affairs and to prevent the Company's shareholders from

interfering in the governance of India. The Board of Control consisted of six members, which

included one Secretary of State from the British cabinet, as well as the Chancellor of theExchequer.Around this time, there was also extensive debate in the British parliament on the

issue of landed rights in Bengal, with a consensus developing in support of the view advocated

byPhilip Francis,a member of the Bengal council and political adversary of Warren Hastings,that all lands in Bengal should be considered the "estate and inheritance of native land-holdersand families ..." Mindful of the reports of abuse and corruption in Bengal by Company servants,

the India Act itself noted numerous complaints that "'divers Rajahs, Zemindars, Polygars,

Talookdars, and landholders"' had been unjustly deprived of 'their lands, jurisdictions, rights, andprivileges'." At the same time the Company's directors were now leaning towards Francis's view

that the land-tax in Bengal should be made fixed and permanent, setting the stage for

thePermanent Settlement (see sectionRevenue settlements under the Companybelow). The

India Act also created in each of the three presidencies a number of administrative and militaryposts, which included: a Governor and three Councilors, one of which was the Commander in

Chief of the Presidency army. Although the supervisory powers of the Governor-General-in-

Council in Bengal (over Madras and Bombay) were extendedas they were again in the CharterAct of 1793the subordinate presidencies continued to exercise some autonomy until both the

extension of British possessions into becoming contiguous and the advent of faster

communications in the next century. Still, the new Governor-General appointed in 1786, Lord

Cornwallis, not only had more power than Hastings, but also had the support of a powerfulBritish cabinet minister,Henry Dundas,who, asSecretary of state for theHome Office,was in

charge of the overall India policy. From 1784 onwards, the British government had the final

word on all major appointments in India; a candidate's suitability for a senior position was oftendecided by the strength of his political connexions rather than that of his administrative ability.

Although this practice resulted in many Governor-General nominees being chosen from Britain's

conservative landed gentry, there were some liberals as well, such asLord William Bentinckand

Lord Dalhousie. British political opinion was also shaped by the attemptedImpeachment ofWarren Hastings;the trial, whose proceedings began in 1788, ended, with Hastings' acquittal, in

1795. Although the effort was chiefly coordinated byEdmund Burke,it also drew support from

within the British government. Burke, accused Hastings not only of corruption, butappealingto universal standards of justicealso of acting solely upon his own discretion and without

concern for law and of willfully causing distress to others in India; in response, Hastings'

defenders asserted that his actions were in concert with Indian customs and traditions. AlthoughBurke's speeches at the trial drew applause and focused attention on India, Hastings was

eventually acquitted, due, in part, to the revival of nationalism in Britain in the wake of

theFrench Revolution; nonetheless, Burke's effort had the effect of creating a sense of

responsibility in British public life for the Company's dominion in India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_the_Exchequerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_the_Exchequerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Francis_(English_politician)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Settlementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India#Revenue_settlements_under_the_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Dundashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Officehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_William_Bentinckhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Warren_Hastingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Warren_Hastingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burkehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burkehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Warren_Hastingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Warren_Hastingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_William_Bentinckhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Officehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Dundashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India#Revenue_settlements_under_the_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Settlementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Francis_(English_politician)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_the_Exchequerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer


8/20


[Type text] Page 8

ACTS INTRODUCE BY EAST INDIA COMPANY FOR

EASTABLISHMENT OF THEIR EMPIRE IN INDIA

34By theRegulating Act of 1773 (later known as the East India Company Act 1773),

theParliament of Great Britain imposed a series of administrative and economic reforms and by

doing so clearly established its sovereignty and ultimate control over the Company. The Actrecognised the Company's political functions and clearly established that the "acquisition of

sovereigntyby the subjects of the Crown is on behalf of the Crown and not in its own right."

Despite stiff resistance from the East India lobby in parliament and from the Company'sshareholders the Act was passed. It introduced substantial governmental control and allowed the

land to be formally under the control of the Crown, but leased to the Company at 40,000 for

two years. Under this provision governor of BengalWarren Hastingsbecame the firstGovernor-

General of Bengal,and had administrative powers over all of British India. It provided that hisnomination, though made by a court of directors, should in future be subject to the approval of

aCouncil of Four appointed by the CrownnamelyLt. General Sir John Clavering,The

Honourable Sir George Monson,Sir Richard Barwell,andSir Philip Francis. Hastings was

entrusted with the power of peace and war. British judicial personnel would also be sent to Indiato administer the British legal system. The Governor General and the council would have

complete legislative powers. The company was allowed to maintain its virtual monopoly over

trade in exchange for the biennial sum and was obligated to export a minimum quantity of goodsyearly to Britain. The costs of administration were to be met by the company. These provisions

were initially welcomed by the Company, but with the annual burden of the payment to be met,

its finances continued steadily to decline.

5The Act Of Settlement Of 1781

This act declare that governor general and members of council they were exempted from the

jurisdiction of supreme court from things done by them things done by their judicial previeweither individually or collectively. The governor general and council or any person acting under

them having no immunity before English courts. The revenue matters and arising out of itscollection were excluded from the jurisdiction of supreme court. Under section 17 of this act, the

English laws were not applicable on native Indians. The Hindus and the Muslims should judged

by there personal law. And in any dispute arises between two religion then the case should be

judged by the law prevailing in defendant religion. The supreme court were empowered todecide cases of wrong doing like trespass and in civil cases where parties had agreed in writing

the submit their cases to supreme court. It was also provided that supreme court will not entertain

any cases against person holding judicial office in any native court for any wrong done by his

judicial decision. Person working under authority of such judicial officer were also exempted and

3Page no. 34 Indian legal & constitutional history by, M.P. Singh

4http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/496238/Regulating-Act accused on 17/04/2014 at

4:41p.m.

5Page no.46 Indian legal & constitutional history by, M.P. Singh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulating_Act_of_1773http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Great_Britainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_sovereigntyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_sovereigntyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Hastingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Bengalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Bengalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Four_from_Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clavering_(British_Army_officer)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_Richard_Barwell&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Francis_(English_politician)http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/496238/Regulating-Act%20accused%20on%2017/04/2014%20at%204:41http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/496238/Regulating-Act%20accused%20on%2017/04/2014%20at%204:41http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/496238/Regulating-Act%20accused%20on%2017/04/2014%20at%204:41http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/496238/Regulating-Act%20accused%20on%2017/04/2014%20at%204:41http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/496238/Regulating-Act%20accused%20on%2017/04/2014%20at%204:41http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/496238/Regulating-Act%20accused%20on%2017/04/2014%20at%204:41http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Francis_(English_politician)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_Richard_Barwell&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clavering_(British_Army_officer)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Four_from_Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Bengalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Bengalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Hastingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_sovereigntyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_sovereigntyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Great_Britainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulating_Act_of_1773


9/20


[Type text] Page 9

this had been mentioned in section 24 of this act. The parliament recognized by this act of 1791,the civil and the criminal provisional codes. These company court were existing independently of

the supreme court. It was most important provision of act of 1781 as it completely reversed the

policy of act of 1773. This act provide sadar diwani adalat will be the court of appeal to hearappeal from country courts in civil cases. It was recognized as court of record. Its judgment werefinal except judgment given by king in council in civil cases involving Rs.5000 or more. Sadar

diwani adalat was presided over governor general and the member of his council. It was also

empowered to decide cases of revenue collection and undue influence in collection revenue. Theact of 1781 authorized governor general and his member of council to frame for provincial

council and provincial courts which were existed then. This act recognized right of family head

on the member of family. The Hindu and Muslim residing in Calcutta they were to be govern by

their personal law in civil matter. This act empowered the governor general and member ofcouncil to frame rules for conducting civil and criminal trails in the provincial council. Within 6

months the copies of these regulation should be sent to court of director and secretary of the

state. The supreme council could now frame the rules for the territory of Bihar Bengal andOrissa. The power of supreme court were curtailed by this act but still earned greater prestige as

consider great institution by Europeans and Indians. The result was that, similar court were

established in Bombay and madras. Now ever the executive council of governor general was

given all powers. It provided for the release of all defendants who were arrested in Patna case.The governor general and the council they gave security for payment of damages awarded to

them. They were also allowed to file and appeal to king in council against supreme court.

East India Company Act 1784 (Pitt's India Act)

The East India Company Act 1784 (Pitt's India Act)had two key aspects:

Relationship to the British government: the bill differentiated the East India Company's political

functions from its commercial activities. In political matters the East India Company wassubordinated to the British government directly. To accomplish this, the Act created a Board of

Commissioners for the Affairs of India, usually referred to as the Board of Control. The

members of the Board were theChancellor of the Exchequer, theSecretary of State, andfourPrivy Councillors, nominated by the King. The act specified that the Secretary of State

"shall preside at, and bePresident of the said Board". Internal Administration of British India:

the bill laid the foundation for the centralised and bureaucratic British administration of India

which would reach its peak at the beginning of the 20th century during the governor-generalshipofGeorge Nathaniel Curzon, 1st Baron Curzon.

Pitt's Act was deemed a failure because it quickly became apparent that the boundaries betweengovernment control and the company's powers were nebulous and highly subjective. The

government felt obliged to respond to humanitarian calls for better treatment of local peoples in

British-occupied territories.Edmund Burke,a former East India Company shareholder anddiplomat, was moved to address the situation and introduced a new Regulating Bill in 1783. The
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitt%27s_India_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_the_Exchequerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_(United_Kingdom)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_of_the_United_Kingdomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Board_of_Controlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Nathaniel_Curzon,_1st_Marquess_Curzon_of_Kedlestonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burkehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burkehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Nathaniel_Curzon,_1st_Marquess_Curzon_of_Kedlestonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Board_of_Controlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_of_the_United_Kingdomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_(United_Kingdom)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_the_Exchequerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_Boardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitt%27s_India_Act


10/20


[Type text] Page 10

bill was defeated amid lobbying by company loyalists and accusations of nepotism in the bill's

recommendations for the appointment of councillors.

Act of 1786

The Act of 1786 (26 Geo. 3 c. 16) enacted the demand ofEarl Cornwallis that the powers of the

Governor-General be enlarged to empower him, in special cases, to override the majority of his

Council and act on his own special responsibility. The Act enabled the offices of the Governor-

General and the Commander-in-Chief to be jointly held by the same official.

This Act clearly demarcated borders between the Crown and the Company. After this point, the

Company functioned as a regularised subsidiary of the Crown, with greater accountability for itsactions and reached a stable stage of expansion and consolidation. Having temporarily achieved

a state of truce with the Crown, the Company continued to expand its influence to nearbyterritories through threats and coercive actions. By the middle of the 19th century, the

Company's rule extended across most of India,Burma,Malaya,Singapore, andBritish HongKong,and a fifth of the world's population was under its trading influence.

East India Company Act 1793

The Company's charter was renewed for a further 20 years by theCharter Act of 1793.In

contrast with the legislative proposals of the past two decades, the 1793 Act was not aparticularly controversial measure, and made only minimal changes to the system of government

in India and to British oversight of the Company's activities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Cornwallis,_1st_Marquess_Cornwallishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Malayahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Konghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Konghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Act_of_1793http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Act_of_1793http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Konghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Konghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Malayahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Cornwallis,_1st_Marquess_Cornwallis


11/20


[Type text] Page 11

JUDICIAL REFORM BROUGHT BY THEM FOR STRENGHTENING

THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Until the British gained control ofBengal in the mid-18th century, the system of justice there

was presided over by theNawab of Bengal himself, who, as the chief law officer,Nawb Nzim,attended to cases qualifying for capital punishment in his headquarters,Murshidabad. His

deputy, theNaib Nzim, attended to the slightly less important cases. The ordinary lawsuits

belonged to the jurisdiction of a hierarchy of court officials consisting of faujdrs,muhtasils,

and kotwls. In the rural areas, or theMofussil, thezamindarsthe rural overlords with thehereditary right to collect rent from peasant farmersalso had the power to administer justice.

This they did with little routine oversight, being required to report only their judgments in capital

punishment cases to theNawb.

By the mid-18th century, the British too had completed a century and a half in India, and had aburgeoning presence in the three presidency towns ofMadras,Bombay,andCalcutta.During this

time the successiveRoyal Charters had gradually given theEast India Company more power to

administer justice in these towns. In the charter granted byCharles II in 1683, the Company was

given the power to establish "courts of judicature" in locations of its choice, each courtconsisting of a lawyer and two merchants. This right was renewed in the subsequent charters

granted byJames II andWilliam III in 1686 and 1698 respectively. In 1726, however, the Courtof Directors of the Company felt that more customary justice was necessary for Europeanresidents in the presidency towns, and petitioned the King to establish Mayor's Courts. The

petition was approved and Mayor's courts, each consisting of a Mayor and nine aldermen, and

each having the jurisdiction in lawsuits between Europeans, were created in Fort William(Calcutta), Madras, and Bombay. Judgments handed down by a Mayor's Court could be disputed

with an appeal to the respective Presidency government and, when the amount disputed was

greater thanRs. 4,000, with a further appeal to theKing-in-Council.In 1753, the Mayor's courts

were renewed under a revisedletters patent; in addition,Courts of Requests for lawsuitsinvolving amounts less than Rs. 20 were introduced. Both types of courts were regulated by the

Court of Directors of the East India Company.

After its victory in theBattle of Buxar,the Company obtained in 1765 the DiwniofBengal,the

right not only to collect revenue, but also to administer civil justice in Bengal. The

administration of criminal justice, theNizmator Faujdri, however, remained with theNawb,and for criminal cases the prevailingIslamic law remained in place. However, the Company's

new duties associated with the Diwniwere leased out to the Indian officials who had formerly

performed them. This makeshift arrangement continuedwith much accompanying disarray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawab_of_Bengalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murshidabadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamindarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chennaihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcuttahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Charterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Englandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_Englandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_Englandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Councilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Requestshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Buxarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Buxarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Requestshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Councilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_Englandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_Englandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Englandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Charterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcuttahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chennaihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamindarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murshidabadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawab_of_Bengalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal


12/20


[Type text] Page 12

until 1771, when the Court of Directors of the Company decided to obtain for the Company the

jurisdiction of both criminal and civil cases.

Soon afterwards6Warren Hastings arrived in Calcutta as the first Governor-General of the

Company's Indian dominions and resolved to overhaul the Company's organisation and in

particular its judicial affairs. In the interior, or Mofussil, diwni adlats, or acivil courts of firstinstance, were constituted in each district; these courts were presided over by

European Ziljudges employed by the Company, who were assisted in the interpretation of

customary Indian law by Hindupandits and Muslimqazis.For small claims, however, Registrarsand Indian commissioners, known as Sadr Amnsand Munsifs, were appointed. These in their

turn were supervised by provincial civil courts of appeal constituted for such purpose, each

consisting of four British judges. All these were under the authority of the Sadr Diwni Adlat,or theChief Civil Court of Appeals, consisting of the Governor of the Presidency and his

Council, assisted by Indian officers.

Similarly for criminal cases, Mofussil nizmat adlats, or Provincialcourts of criminaljudicature, were created in the interior; these again consisted of Indian court officers

(panditsand qazis), who were supervised by officials of the Company. Also constitutedwereCourts of circuit withappellate jurisdiction in criminal cases, which were usually presidedover by the judges of the civil appellate courts. All these too were under a Sadr Nizmat

Adlator a Chief Court of Criminal Appeal.

Around this time the business affairs of theEast India Companybegan to draw increased

scrutiny in theHouse of Commons.After receiving a report by a committee, which condemned

the Mayor's Courts, theCrown issued a charter for a new judicial system in theBengalPresidency. TheBritish Parliament consequently enacted the Regulating Act of 1773 under

which theKing-in-Council created aSupreme Court in the Presidency town, i.e.Fort William.

The tribunal consisted of one Chief Justice and threepuisne judges;all four judges were to be

chosen frombarristers.The Supreme Court supplanted the Mayor's Court; however, it left theCourt of Requests in place. Under the charter, the Supreme Court, moreover, had the authority to

exercise all types of jurisdiction in the region of Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha, with the only caveat

that in situations where the disputed amount was in excess of Rs. 4,000, their judgment could beappealed to thePrivy Council. Both the Act and the charter said nothing about the relation

between thejudiciary (Supreme Court) and theexecutive branch (Governor-General); equally,

they were silent on the Adlats(both DiwniandNizmat) created by Warren Hastings just theyear before. In the new Supreme Court, the civil and criminal cases alike were interpreted and

prosecuted accorded toEnglish law; in the Sadr Adlats, however, the judges and law-officers

had no knowledge of English law, and were required only, by the Governor-General's order, "to

proceed according to equity, justice, and good conscience, unlessHindu orMuhammadan

law was in point, or some Regulation expressly applied."

There was a good likelihood, therefore, that the Supreme Court and the Sadr Adlatswould act

in opposition to each other and, predictably, many disputes resulted. Hastings' premature attempt

to appoint the Chief Justice,Sir Elijah Impey,an old schoolmate fromWinchester,to the bench

6Page no.26 Indian legal & constitutional history by, M.P. Singh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Hastingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Hastingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Hastingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pundit_(India)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qazihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellate_courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellate_jurisdictionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Great_Britainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crownhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Councilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcuttahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puisne_judgehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barristerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Councilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciaryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_branchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Impeyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Collegehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Collegehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Impeyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_branchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciaryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Councilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barristerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puisne_judgehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcuttahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Councilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crownhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Great_Britainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellate_jurisdictionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellate_courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qazihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pundit_(India)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Hastings


13/20


[Type text] Page 13

of the Sadr Diwni Adlat, only complicated the situation further. The appointment had to beannulled in 1781 by a parliamentary intervention with the enactment of the Declaration Act. The

Act exempted the Executive Branch from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It recognised the

independent existence of the Sadr Adlatsand all subsidiary courts of the Company.

Furthermore, it headed off future legal turf wars by prohibiting the Supreme Court anyjurisdiction in matters of revenue (Diwni) or Regulations of the Government enacted by the

British Parliament. This state of affairs continued until 1797, when a new Act extended the

jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to the province ofBenares (which had since been added to the

Company's dominions) and "all places for the time being included in Bengal." With theconstituting of theCeded and Conquered Provinces in 1805, the jurisdiction would extend as far

west as Delhi.

In the other two presidencies,Madras andBombay,a similar course of legal changes unfolded;

there, however, the Mayor's Courts were first strengthened toRecorder's Courtsby adding a legal

president to the bench. The Supreme Courts in Madras and Bombay were finally established in1801 and 1823, respectively.Madras Presidency was also unusual in being the first to rely on

village headmen andpanchyatsfor cases involving small claims. This judicial system in the

three presidencies was to survive the Company's rule, the next major change coming only in

1861.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benareshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceded_and_Conquered_Provinceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorder%27s_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchayathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchayathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchayathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchayathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorder%27s_Courthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madras_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceded_and_Conquered_Provinceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Presidencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benares


14/20


[Type text] Page 14

CCAASSEESSHHEEAARREEDDBBYYEEAASSTTIINNDDIIEESSDDUURRIINNGGTTHHIISSEERRAA

RAJANAND KUMAR CASE, 17757Raja Nand Kumar, a Hindu Brahmin was a big Zamindar and a very influential person

ofBengal. He was loyal to the English company ever since the days of Clive and was

popularly known as black colonel by the company. Three out of four members of the

council were opponents of Hastings, the Governor-General and thus the council consisted

of two distinct rival groups, the majority group being opposed toHastings. The majority

group comprisingFrancis,ClaveringandMonsoninstigated Nand Kumar to bring certain

charges of bribery and corruption against warren Hastings before the council whereupon

Nand Kumar in march, 1775 gave a latter to Francis, one of the members of the council

complaining that in 1772, Hastings accepted from him bribery of more than one Lakh for

appointing his son Gurudas, as Diwan. The letter also contained an allegation

againstHastingsthat he accepted rupees two and a half lakh from Munni begum as bribe

for appointing her as the guardian of the minor Nawab Mubarak-ud-Daulah. Francis

placed his letter before the council in his meeting and other supporter, monsoon moved a

motion that Nand Kumar should be summoned to appear before the Council. Warren

Hastings who was presiding the meeting in the capacity of Governor-General, opposed

Monsons motion on the ground that he shall not sit in the meeting to hear accusation s

against himself nor shall he acknowledge the members of his council to be his judges.

Mr. Barwell ,the alone supporter member of Hastings ,put forth a suggestion that NandKumar should file his complaint in the supreme court because it was the court and not the

council ,which was competent to hear the case. But Monsons motion was supported by

the majority henceHastingsdissolved the meeting. Thereupon majority of the members

objected to this action ofHastingsand elected Clavering to preside over the meeting in

place ofHastings.Nand Kumar was called before the council to prove his charges

againstHastings. The majority members of the council examined Nand Kumar briefly

and declared that the charges leveled againstHastingswere proved and

directedHastingsto deposit an amount of Rs.3, 54,105 in treasury of the company, which

he had accepted as a bribe from Nand Kumar and Munni Begum.Hastingsgenuinely

believed that the council had no authority to inquire into Nand Kumars charges againsthim. This event madeHastingsa bitter enemy of Nand Kumar and he looked for an

opportunity to show him down.

7http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Infamous-trial-of-Raja-Nand-Kumar--

5104.asp#.U1IDlFWSyp0 accused on 14/04/2014 at 5:21 p.m.


15/20


[Type text] Page 15

Facts of the case:-

Soon after, Nand Kumar was along with Fawkes and Radha Charan were charged and arrestedfor conspiracy at the instance ofHastingsand barwell. In order to bring further disgrace to Raja

Nand Kumar,Hastingsmanipulated another case of forgery against him at the instance of one

Mohan Prasad in the conspiracy case. The Supreme Court in its decision of July 1775 finedFawkes but reserved its judgment against Nand Kumar on the grounds of pending fraud case.

The charge against Nand Kumar in the forgery case was that he had forged a bond in 1770. The

council protested against Nand Kumars charge in the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court

proceeded with the case unheeded. Finally, Nand Kumar was tried by the jury of twelveEnglishmen who returned a verdict of guilty and consequently, the supreme court sentenced

him to death under an act of the British parliament called the Forgery Act which was passed as

early as 1728.Serious efforts were made to save the life of Nand Kumar and an application for

granting leave to appeal to the king-in-council was moved in the Supreme Court but the samewas rejected. Another petition for recommending the case for mercy to the British council was

also turned down by the Supreme Court. The sentence passed by the Supreme Court was dulyexecuted by hanging Nand Kumar to death on August 5, 1775.In this way,Hastingssucceeded ingetting rid of Nand Kumar.

CRITICAL APPRAISAL:-

Chief Justice Impey in this case acted unjustly in refusing to respite to Nand Kumar. No rational

man can doubt that he took this course in order to gratify the Governor-General. The trial ofNand Kumar disclosed that the institution of Supreme Court hardly commanded any respect

from the natives as it wholly unsuited to their social conditions and customs. The trial has beencharacterized asjudicial murderof Raja Nand Kumar which rudely shocked the conscience ofmankind. Raja Nand Kumars trial was certainly a case of miscarriage of justice.

PATNA CASE (1777-1779)

8Fact of this case

Shahbah beg khan , native of Kabul came to india and settled down in patna. He married

nadirah begum and acquired a large amount money while in service of company. He had

no issue, therefore he invited his nephew bhadur beg from Kabul to reside with him the

intention to adopt him. But before dat he could adopt him he died in December, 1776.Bahdur beg took thr first step and filed suit against the nadira begum in patna provincial

council for getting right over the property. In the provincial court the case placed before

the law officer muhammadan. The officer after full hearing reported to the council that

8http://www.slideshare.net/mtaft/judicial-14628899 accused on 17/04/2014 at 5:50p.m.
http://www.slideshare.net/mtaft/judicial-14628899%20accused%20on%2017/04/2014%20at%205:50http://www.slideshare.net/mtaft/judicial-14628899%20accused%20on%2017/04/2014%20at%205:50http://www.slideshare.net/mtaft/judicial-14628899%20accused%20on%2017/04/2014%20at%205:50http://www.slideshare.net/mtaft/judicial-14628899%20accused%20on%2017/04/2014%20at%205:50


16/20


[Type text] Page 16

gift deeds were forged documents and no gift was made in the favor of nadirah begum by

deceased. They also reported that nephew bahadur beg court not adopted under Muslim

law. Therefore, recommended that property be divided into four parts out of which three

parts were to be given to bahadur beg on the basis of consanguinity and also heir of the

diseased and the fourth part be given to the widow. Nadirah begum was dissatisfied wirh

the decision of provincial council and she filed an appeal before the sadar diwani adalat

at Calcutta. Due to their busy routine work they could not consider the matter for a long

time. With indifferent approach of the court, she filed a suit in the supreme court against

Bahadur Beg, Kazi and mufti for assault , bettery, unlawful imprisonment and claimed 6

lakhs as damaged. The supreme court issued order to arrest of Bahadur Beg, kazi and

mufti. The supreme court decided that documents were genuine and that kazi and mufti

did not act in a good faith. The court awarded the damages of Rs. 300,000 in favor of

Nadirah Begum and the officers were imprisoned. The whole case was bitterly criticized

on the grounds that which law Bahadur Beg and law officers were subjected to the

jurisdiction of supreme court. The supreme court justified his jurisdiction over BahadurBeg as a former and paying land revenue to the company. Both parties were Muslim to

which the Mohammedan Law of inheritance was to apply, it was purely a matter of

personal law to Mohammeans. There were no written agreement between the parties to

submit the case to the supreme court for a decision

Cossijurah case

Facts of the case

Raja sunder narayan was the zamindar of cossijurah took a very big amount of loan from

kashinath who was the financer of Calcutta. The loan remainder unpained for aconsiderably long time, consequently kashinath brought a suit against zamindar in the

supreme court. The supreme court issued orders to arrest zamindar. The zamindar went

underground to avoid his arrest. The collector of Midnapur informed the governor

general due to the Zamindar absence, the revenue collection was suffering. Based on the

advice of advocate general, governor general directed the zamindar not to attend before

the court. Governor general also stated that no Zamindar was subjected to the jurisdiction

of the supreme court. The sheriff of Calcutta with some forces was sent by court to

execute the ordrrs of supreme court and they arrested Zamindar also. On hearing about

this incident the governor general-in-council also sent a small force to arrest sheriff and

his party and release the Zamindar from arrest. The governor generals forces arrested the

sheriff along with his party and they were released afterwards. The judges were become

angry and felt insulted. However, the court took an action against North Naylor,

Advocate General, on the plea that the wrongly advised the governor general for defying

the orders of the court and he was tried and sent jail.


17/20


[Type text] Page 17

Kamaludin case

Fact of the case

Kammaludin a farmer of hugli war courts control by the calcuta revenue council on the

ground of arrears of revenue. The revenue council released to orders to arrest

kammaludin . He approaches the supreme court for a writ of habeas corpus and the court

given bail till the enquiry as his obligation to pay was completed. Same time court

directed the council to accept bail for kammaludins appearance in the diwani adalat and

not to take him into custody until his under renter had been called upon to pay the rent.

The council thought that according to the 1773 Act, the court had no right to interfere in

revenue collection. Three member of the council suggested that court order should not be

recognized and obeyed. But some time later kammaludin was arrested again and he again

obtained writ habeas corpus and he was finally discharhes by the court. Chief justice

Imphy in a latter to the court of director Justified courts action on two grounds. In a case

of this nature, it had been the usual practice for revenue council to take bail ans so thecourt madw direction for taking bail. It has been the established practices to deemed rent

from the under tenant before demanding much less imprionning the former and the court

order was consistent with the practice.


18/20


[Type text] Page 18

CONCLUSION

The EIC was first and foremost a commercial enterprise concerned with making a profit for its

investors. It tried to minimize its involvement in local politics but as its commercial activities

expanded and it became a major economic force both in India and in England the economic and

political dimension became inseparable. The decision to become something more than a"mere" trading company was not the result of some grand strategy developed in London but

rather an "emergent "3 strategy which evolved locally because of the competitive forces in India

at the time. The personal conflict between Sulivan and Clive might capture the prurient mind ofthe historian but there was a serious policy question at stake: the relationship between the

individual and the corporation and who deserves the rewards of the individual's efforts.

Underlying the dispute was the fundamental "agency" problem. Sulivan defended the rights of

the corporation, Clive, of the individual, at least as far as his personal benefits were concerned.Clive took a different attitude towards the other servants of the company. The battle between

Sulivan and Clive moved to the Board Room (The Court of Directors) and their stock-splitting

maneuvers also affected the voting rights of the shareholders. It is not clear whether the six-

month ownership requirement helped or hindered the shareholders nor whether the introductionof restricted votes, relative to the number of shares owned, was fair. The change in strategy and

the increased complexity of the company's operations required a significant change in thestructure of the London head office (East India House). A new department was established to

manage the Indian operations, The Department of Indian Correspondence. The Chief Examiner,

who headed up this department, was responsible for overseeing the entire Indian operations and

for initiating the company's response to events both in India and in London. Intelligent, highlyeducated individuals such as James and John Stuart Mill were selected to manage this

department; they were the vanguard of the professional managers of the future. The company, as

an international trading enterprise, was always familiar with the problems of exchange rates andcustom duties. It also appreciated the importance of controlling the cash flow over the trading

season. It learned very early the harsh consequences of losing control over its Indian subsidiariesand their impact on the claims against the company's cash in London. It learned the harsh

consequences of having to go to the government to borrow money to help it over a cash crunch(shades of Chrysler and the Reichmanns) and the pain of an exhaustive parliamentary enquiry

and resulting legislation. Henry Mintzberg and J.B. Quinn, use the adjective "emergent" to

identify strategies which evolve in response to environmental changes rather than out of a formalplanning process. It is interesting that the first legislation introduced by the Government

(post 1749), the Regulating Act of 1773, was designed to separate "ownership and control". It

was argued that this was necessary to ensure better, more responsible management. Is this acorollary of the large complex organization? Is this the precedent for the observations of Berle

and Means a century and a half later? Our understanding of the political forces which shaped the

EIC has been well documented by authors such as Sutherland , Philips and Parker but thereremains much to be learned about the management of such enterprises and the way in whichthey adapted their strategy and structure to deal with these issues. Chandler [3; 4] has given us

the models to carry out the analysis, the extensive archives of the India Office Library give us

the data to work with. A more detailed study of the EIC may yet reveal more lessons about the

challenges faced by management in directing and controlling large complex internationalorganizations and in dealing with the government at home and abroad.


19/20


[Type text] Page 19

There has been a good deal of controversy amongst statisticians about the rate of growth

of income in India in the colonial period. The argument is politically coloured and the statisticsare poor. For the last fifty years of British rule there is enough statistical information to make

rough estimates of the growth of national income. My own estimates, which are based largely on

work by Blyn and Sivasubramonian, show no increase in per capita income over the years 1900-46 . Other observers have estimates which show some growth over this period as well as in theperiod from 1857. Although I think my estimates are the best available, I have enough scepticism

about the basic agricultural data to believe that the other estimates could be right for the wrong

reasons and that there may have been some rise in per capita income from 1857 to 1947. Thereare no estimates for the movement in income from Clive's conquest to the Mutiny, but there

could not have been much net progress in real income per head before the development of

railways, 23 modern industry, irrigation and the big expansion in international trade, and there

are reasons for thinking that there was some decline.64 From the beginning of British conquestin 1757 to independence, it seems unlikely that per capita income could have increased by more

than a third and it probably did not increase at all. In the UK itself there was a tenfold increase in

per capita income over these two centuries.65 The most noticeable change in the economy wasthe rise in population from about 170 million to 420 million from 1757 to 1947.

However, there were some significant changes in social structure and in the pattern of

output. The social pyramid was truncated because the British lopped off most of the top three

layers of the Moghul hierarchy, i.e. the Moghul court, the Moghul aristocracy and quasi-autonomous prices (a quarter of these survived), and the local chieftainry (zamindars who

survived in about 40 per cent of India). In place of these people the British installed a modern

bureaucracy which took a smaller share of national income. The newcomers had a more modestlife-style than the Moghuls, but siphoned a large part of their savings out of the country and

provided almost no market for India's luxury handicrafts. The modern factory sector which they

created produced only 7.5 per cent of national income at the end of British rule and thus did little

more than replace the old luxury handicrafts and part of the village textile production. TheBritish reduced the tax squeeze on agriculture and turned warlords into landlords, but the new

order had little dynamism. A good deal of the old fuzziness about property rights remained, and

landlords were still largely parasitic. The bigger zamindars copied the Moghul lifestyle bymaintaining hordes of retainers and huge mansions, the smaller landowner's ambition was to stop

working and enhance his ritual purity by establishing a seedy gentility. Very little incentive was

provided for investment and almost nothing was done to promote technical change in agriculture.At the bottom of society the position of sharecropping tenantry and landless labourers remained

wretched. In urban areas a new Westernized 'middle class' of Indians emerged and became the

major challenge to the British raj.


20/20


[Type text] Page 20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTERNET SOURCES

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com

http://www.slideshare.net

http://www.britannica.com

http://www.indhistory.com

BOOK SOURCES

B.L.Groverand S.Grover: A New Look at Modern Indian History

V.D.Mahajan: Modern Indian History from 1707 to the Present Day

B.B.Mishra: Administration of East India Company

Majumdar, Raychaudhari and Dutta: An Advanced History of India

M.P.Jain; Outlines of Indian Legal History

Peter Auber, An Analysis of the Constitution of the East India

CompanY

INDIAN LEGAL & CONSITUTIONAL HISTORY By, M.P. Singh

constitutional set up of east India company

Documents

Transcript of constitutional set up of east India company