Trial of Raja Nand Kumar

(1775): A Judicial Murder

The trial of Raja Nand Kumar was the first decisive event during the early stage
of growing bitterness between the Supreme Court and the Council. In this case,
the judges of Supreme Court introduced English principles of law and procedure
into India. These laws were not known to Indians before. The trial also gained
importance as it formed an integral part of the charge on which Warren Hastings
and Impey were impeached by the House of Commons after their return to
England.

Who was Raja Nand Kumar?

Raja Nand Kumar, a Hindu Brahmin was a big Zamindar and was once
Governor of Hugli under Nawab Siraj-Ud-Daulah in 1756 in Bengal. He was
loyal to the English company ever since the days of Robert Clive and was
popularly known as “black colonel” by the company.

Background
Three out of four members of the council were opponents of Warren Hastings (,
the Governor-General and thus the council consisted of two distinct rival groups,
the majority group being opposed to Hastings.

The majority group comprising Francis, Clavering and Monson instigated Nand
Kumar to bring certain charges of bribery and corruption against warren
Hastings before the council whereupon Nand Kumar in march, 1775 gave a
letter to Francis, one of the members of the council complaining that in 1772,
Hastings accepted from him bribery of more than 1 Lakh for appointing his son
Gurudas, as Diwan. The letter also contained an allegation against Hastings that
he accepted rupees 2.5 lakh from Munni begum as bribe for appointing her as
the guardian of the minor Nawab Mubarak-ud-Daulah. The Council received
another letter from Nand Kumar dated 13th March 1775 through which he

1|Page
offered to produce vouchers supporting his charges of bribery against Warren
Hastings.

Francis placed his letter before the council in his meeting and other supporter,
Monson 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 Monson’s motion on the ground that he
shall not sit in the meeting to hear accusations 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
Nand Kumar 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 Monson’s motion was supported by the majority hence Hastings dissolved
the meeting. Thereupon majority of the members objected to this action of
Hastings and elected Clavering to occupy the presiding seat at the meeting.

The Council found the charges of Raja Nand Kumar, against Warren Hastings to
be true and held that he received a sum of Rs.3, 54,105/- as a bribe and
therefore the Council by a resolution directed Warren Hastings to pay the same
amount into the Company’s treasury.

2|Page
THE TRIAL

Raja Nand Kumar was arrested, a few months later, for conspiracy at the
instance of the Governor General and Barnwell. Warren Hastings and his favorite
Council member Barewell declared their intention before the judges of the
Supreme Court, to prosecute Raja Nand Kumar, his associates Fawkes, and
Radhacharan for conspiracy. The trial of Raja Nand Kumar, for conspiracy,
continued with another trial of his for forgery. The Supreme Court delivered its
judgment in July 1775, in the conspiracy case. Fawke was fined, but the
judgment was reserved against Nand Kumar on account of the forgery case.

The Governor-General Warren Hastings felt that it would be difficult to involve

Nand Kumar directly in the conspiracy case and therefore he implicated Nand
Kumar in another case of forgery, for which the punishment was death as per the
provisions of the English Act of 1729.

The charge of forgery against Nand Kumar, was with respect to a bond or deed
claimed as an acknowledgment of debt from Bulaki Das, the banker, which it is
said, was executed by him in 1765.

Le Maistre and Hyde acted as Magistrates, they heard the case and scrutinized
the evidence for the prosecution till late in the night. The Magistrates, ordered
the Sheriff and keeper of His Majesty’s prison at Calcutta to keep Nand Kumar in
safe custody until he would be released as per law. Mohan Prasad gave a bond to
prosecute Nand Kumar in the Supreme Court dated 7th May 1775, and on this
basis, his trial commenced before the Chief Justice and three other puisne judges
of the Supreme Court on 8th May 1775.

The trial of Nand Kumar began on 8th June and continued for eight days without
any postponement. The advocate of Nand Kumar, first of all, advanced a plea as
to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the matter, which was rejected by the
Court. The Court sat every day from 8 a.m. and witnesses were scrutinized till
late at night.

One of the most peculiar features of this trial was that the judges cross-examined
the defense witnesses in minute detail on the plea that the nand Counsel was

3|Page
incapable of doing it efficiently. It raised a serious question mark on the integrity
and the impartiality of judges.

The trial lasted till the midnight of 15th June 1775. The Chief Justice Impey
summed up the whole case on the morning of 16th June. The judges gave the
unanimous verdict of “guilty,” and the jury also declared their verdict of
“guilty.” The Chief Justice after rejecting all pleas to defend Raja Nand Kumar,
sentenced him to death under an Act of the British Parliament which was passed
in 1729.

Every possible attempt to save Raja Nand Kumar was made but to no avail. The
advocate of Raja Nand Kumar decided to take an appeal to the King-in-Council
and petitioned the Court to stay the implementation of the decision so long as the
Council’s decision was not known. The Court rejected the petition. The efforts to
seek the assistance of the members of the Council also proved in vain. The letter
of recommendation by the Nawab to the Council, to suspend the sentence until
the pleasure of His Majesty was known, also proved to be futile, since the
Supreme Court took no action upon it after being forwarded by the Council. In a
last petition to the Council, which had no control over the court, Nand Kumar
asserted, "They put me to Death out of Enmity and Partiality to the Gentlemen
who have betrayed their Trust."

Raja Nand Kumar was thus hanged on 5th August 1775 at 8:00 a.m. at Cooly
Bazar near Fort William.

Two Important question raised in the trial

In this trial, two very important questions emerged. The first, whether the
Supreme Court had jurisdiction in this matter? Second, whether the English Act
of 1729, which made forgery a capital offense, was extended to India? The prime
objection regarding the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction was that before the
establishment of Supreme Court in Calcutta, the Indians in Bengal were tried by
local Faujdari Adalats. In this case, the offense was committed before the
establishment of the Supreme Court, and therefore it had no jurisdiction to
decide the case. On the second issue of applicability of the Act of 1729 to India,
there was a divided opinion even amongst the judges, but ultimately the majority
views including that of the Chief Justice Impey prevailed.

4|Page
Thus the decision of the Supreme Court, in this case, created a huge controversy
and depicted the arbitrary state of the administration of justice in India. This
decision was widely criticized and popularly referred to as judicial murder of
Raja Nand Kumar.

Post Trial
Hasting’s Argument:
There was no possibility of Hastings denying that the money he had taken fell
literally within the comprehensive terms of his covenant to take no "allowance"
or "donation" or "compensation" from an Indian prince.(Since the payment had
been made in 1772 it was not covered by North's Regulating Act). But was
Hastings' breach of his oath a crime? The question, as put to the Lords by
Hastings' counsel, Robert Dallas, was whether "established usage" did not grant
"persons of distinguished rank" an "allowance for table expenses" when "resident
at the court of eastern princes.The practice of earlier Governors was cited as
precedent; the allowance to the Nawab himself when visiting the Governor in
Calcutta was invoked as parallel. Custom, Dallas argued, must be decisive as to
whether the act was criminal. Even in England itself, there were "a great number
of different practices with respect to the receipt of emoluments by persons in
public situations" 9' that would not bear legal scrutiny, but which, sanctioned by
custom, could not be the basis of a criminal charge. To prove corruption the
Managers tried to rely on a record made before the Supreme Council in Bengal.
The Lords ruled the record inadmissible.9 2 Alone, the record would not have
been convincing; but there was a circumstance that strengthened its weight-the
death of the accuser.

The English Chief Justice, Elijah Impey, an ally of Hastings, presided with two
other English judges. There was a great deal of contradictory testimony from
Indians, and the jury of Englishmen had to decide whom to believe. As a matter
of law, it was doubtful that the document Nanda Kumar was said to have forged
fell within the terms of the English forgery statute; it was quite probable-if
Blackstone's treatise was to be believed-that the statute itself did not apply in
Bengal; and it was almost certain that the Supreme Court did not have
jurisdiction to try an Indian for a crime against another Indian. The jury
impeached Warren Hastings as the Governor-General.

5|Page
Elijah Impey’s Impeachment

When Impey ran for a seat in the Commons against Richard Brinsley Sheridan,
an Impeachment Manager, Sheridan's supporters followed Impey with the figure
of a black man with a noose around his neck. It was enough to defeat Impey. But
murder will not always out at the right time and place. An attempt to impeach
Impey foundered on the Pitt administration's unwillingness to support the
charges. No evidence was ever produced that Hastings dictated the result or
interfered in any manner in the judges' conduct of the trial, so that "murder"
seemed to many too strong a characterization of the proceeding. But it was and is
a reasonable inference that Nand Kumar would not have been prosecuted except
for a nod given by Hastings, and if, as seems clear, the court had no jurisdiction,
"murder" appears accurate.

Ultimately, Impey was Impeached by the motion passed in the House of

Commons.

6|Page