1.

Administration of Justice in the Presidency Towns (1600-1773)

The administration of justice in the Presidency towns of the British East India Company (mainly
in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras) between 1600 and 1773 was a complex system evolving over
time as British authority grew. The system was not standardized initially and varied across the
different towns. Here's a detailed breakdown:

Early Period (1600-1660):

When the East India Company first arrived in India in 1600, it primarily focused on trade and
had little involvement in administering justice. During this period, the Company made no
attempt to establish its own courts, and disputes were handled according to the local customs and
laws, often by the local Indian rulers or traditional legal bodies.

Expansion of British Rule (1660-1700):

As the Company expanded its control, it needed a more structured way to handle legal issues,
especially with the growing number of European settlers. In Bombay and Madras, the East India
Company set up its own courts for Europeans, particularly to deal with trade and commercial
disputes. The local Indian population was generally excluded from these courts, which were
based on English common law principles.

Establishment of Courts (1700-1773):

By the early 18th century, the Presidency towns had established more formalized systems of
justice. In Calcutta, the Company created a Court of Requests in 1714, primarily to deal with
civil cases. This was later followed by the establishment of other courts, such as the Mayor’s
Court in 1726, which had both civil and criminal jurisdiction, and was presided over by a mayor
and several councillors, mostly European settlers. This court, however, had limited authority
over the native population.

The legal structure in Madras and Bombay followed similar patterns, with European settlers and
traders subject to English law, and the local population continuing to live under the local Hindu
or Muslim law, depending on their religion.

Key Features of Justice Administration in Presidency Towns:

 European Settlers: A separate judicial system was in place for Europeans. They were
subject to English law, which was distinct from the laws that applied to the native
population.
 Indian Population: The Indian population had no representation in these courts, and
their disputes were handled by local rulers, village elders, or traditional Islamic and
Hindu courts.
 Mayor’s Court (Calcutta, 1726): This court was designed to administer justice to
European settlers but had a limited impact on the wider population. It could deal with
both civil and criminal cases and operated with English common law.
2. The Development of Courts and Judicial Institutions under the East India
Company

The development of courts and judicial institutions under the East India Company was gradual
and reflective of the Company’s shifting priorities from commerce to governance.

Early Stages (1600-1720):

The early years of the East India Company were primarily focused on trade, and the Company
had little involvement in judicial matters. Any disputes among European traders were handled by
the Company's officers, often in an informal manner, or by local rulers.

Establishment of English Courts (1726):

As the British presence grew, especially in Calcutta, the Company established the Mayor’s Court
in 1726. This court was set up to deal with civil and criminal cases involving Europeans. The
jurisdiction of this court was initially confined to Europeans, excluding Indians from its legal
system. However, in 1753, the Company extended the Mayor’s Court to deal with some aspects
of Indian law as well, though it was still heavily influenced by English common law.

Judicial Expansion (1757-1773):

After the Battle of Plassey in 1757, when the British East India Company secured more control
over Bengal, the demand for a more organized judicial system became urgent. The Company set
up separate courts in various regions, and the number of officers handling judicial matters
increased. These courts operated in parallel with the existing local legal systems (e.g., Hindu and
Muslim courts). However, the European traders and Company employees continued to be
governed by English law.

Key Developments in the Judicial System:

 Establishment of Courts: The East India Company set up separate courts for Europeans
and Indians. Initially, these courts were limited to specific towns, but over time, they
spread to other regions.
 Dual System of Justice: The dual system of justice, with separate courts for Europeans
and Indians, led to a lack of uniformity in legal proceedings and widespread injustice for
the Indian population.
 Judicial Officers: Judicial officers were often Company employees who lacked formal
legal training. Their decisions were influenced by the Company’s commercial interests
and often disregarded Indian customary law.

3. Warren Hastings’ Plan of 1772 and the Adalat System of Courts

The Warren Hastings’ Plan of 1772 was a significant reform in British India, designed to
address the inefficiencies and confusion in the judicial system during the East India Company’s
rule. The Adalat system was one of the most important aspects of this reform and aimed to unify
and structure the administration of justice across the territories controlled by the Company.
Background:

By the time Warren Hastings became the Governor-General of India in 1772, the judicial system
was fragmented. The Mayor’s Court in Calcutta dealt with European settlers, while the Indian
population was governed by traditional systems based on Hindu and Muslim personal laws. The
East India Company had only a loose and inconsistent structure for administering justice, and
there were tensions between European law and indigenous legal systems. The Company needed a
coherent system to manage both the growing European population and the vast Indian populace
under its control.

The Adalat System:

The Adalat System was part of Hastings' broader plan to reorganize and streamline the judicial
structure. The reforms aimed to introduce a unified system that would apply across both urban
and rural areas, providing a more systematic administration of justice.

Key features of the system included:

 Two-Tier Structure: The judicial system was reorganized into a two-tier structure. The
Sadar Diwani Adalat (Civil) and Sadar Nizamat Adalat (Criminal) were set up as the
highest courts in the provinces of Bengal. These were designed to handle appeals and
important matters that could not be dealt with at the district level.
o Sadar Diwani Adalat: It dealt with civil matters such as property disputes,
contractual issues, and other non-criminal cases. It functioned as an appellate
court for decisions made by the lower courts.
o Sadar Nizamat Adalat: This court handled criminal matters, including serious
crimes such as murder and theft. It also served as an appellate court in the
criminal justice system.
 Mofussil Adalats: Below these central courts, the system introduced Mofussil Adalats
(district-level courts) to handle cases in rural areas (the Mofussil). These were smaller
courts that dealt with the day-to-day legal disputes of the local population.
 Judicial Officers: The Adalat system involved both European and Indian judges.
European judges, appointed by the East India Company, were usually lawyers or officials
trained in English common law. Indian judges were appointed as Qazis (for Muslim law)
and Pundits (for Hindu law), and they were meant to advise on religious and customary
laws when needed. This integration of Indian judges into the court system was an attempt
to reconcile British law with local customs, especially in rural areas.

Goals of the Plan:

 Centralization of Justice: Hastings aimed to create a more unified and centralized

system of justice that would be applicable across all of India, including both British
subjects and Indians.
 Separation of Powers: One of the key features of the Adalat reforms was the separation
of judicial and executive powers. Prior to this, the same officers who were responsible for
revenue collection and administration also had judicial duties. This often led to
 corruption and inefficiency. Hastings’ reforms attempted to create an independent
judiciary, where judges were separate from administrative functions.
 Transparency and Accessibility: The idea was to make justice more accessible to the
common people, particularly in rural areas. The creation of Mofussil Adalats was meant
to ensure that local disputes could be resolved without having to travel to Calcutta, the
colonial capital.

Challenges:

 Cultural and Legal Disconnect: Despite the inclusion of Indian judges, the Adalat
system was still heavily influenced by English law, and many of the judges were not
well-versed in the complex local customs and traditions. This created a disconnect
between the legal processes and the everyday lives of the Indian population.
 Resistance to British Law: Many local people resisted British legal systems, viewing
them as foreign and alien to their own traditions. This resistance made it difficult for the
Adalat system to gain widespread acceptance.

Conclusion:

The Adalat system was a significant step toward consolidating judicial power under the British
East India Company. While it created a more organized and centralized legal system, it also
faced considerable challenges in reconciling English legal practices with the diverse and deeply
entrenched indigenous legal traditions of India.

4. Reforms Made Under the Plan of 1774 and Reorganization in 1780

The Plan of 1774 and the subsequent reorganization in 1780 by Warren Hastings were aimed at
addressing the growing administrative and judicial challenges faced by the East India Company
in India. These reforms were designed to improve the legal system, clarify jurisdictional issues,
and make the administration more efficient.

The Plan of 1774:

The Plan of 1774 was part of Warren Hastings' broader reforms aimed at reorganizing the
judicial structure in British India. It was designed to resolve many of the problems that had
arisen from the overlapping and confusing judicial powers of the Supreme Court in Calcutta, the
local Mofussil Courts, and the Adalat system.

Key provisions of the Plan of 1774 included:

 Creation of a Centralized Judiciary: The Plan further consolidated the powers of the
Sadar Diwani Adalat and Sadar Nizamat Adalat. These courts were now made
responsible for hearing appeals from lower courts and overseeing the administration of
justice across the territories of the Company.
  Court of Appeal: The Sadar Diwani Adalat and Sadar Nizamat Adalat were granted
more authority as appellate courts. The Supreme Court of Calcutta was also made an
appellate body, particularly for cases involving Europeans, but it was kept separate from
the local Adalats in terms of jurisdiction.
 Strengthening the Adalat System: The Plan increased the number of judges and other
officials in the Adalat courts, providing more consistency in rulings and better
distribution of judicial responsibilities. Indian judges (Qazis and Pundits) continued to
work alongside European officers to ensure that local customs and laws were respected in
the courtroom.

Reorganization in 1780:

The reorganization that took place in 1780, following the introduction of the Plan of 1774, built
upon the earlier reforms but further clarified the roles and responsibilities of the judiciary.

Key aspects of the 1780 reorganization included:

 Appointment of District Judges: District judges were appointed to oversee the Mofussil
courts in rural areas. This provided a more systematic structure to the judicial system at
the grassroots level and helped ensure that justice was not concentrated only in urban
areas like Calcutta.
 Civil and Criminal Divisions: The reorganization made a clearer distinction between
civil and criminal cases. The Sadar Diwani Adalat was given primary jurisdiction over
civil disputes (like property disputes and inheritance issues), while the Sadar Nizamat
Adalat continued to focus on criminal cases.
 Review of Indian Law: Warren Hastings ordered the review of Hindu and Muslim
personal laws to ensure that they were applied more consistently across the country. This
helped address issues related to the diversity of legal practices in India and aimed to
integrate local laws into the formal system.
 Judicial Reforms to Ensure Fairness: The reorganization sought to bring more
transparency and fairness to the judicial system. There was an emphasis on making the
judicial process more transparent, including procedures for handling cases and addressing
grievances against judicial officers.

Challenges of the Reforms:

 Cultural and Legal Misunderstanding: The reforms continued to face resistance from
Indian populations, as English law was often perceived as foreign and unrepresentative of
Indian traditions. Furthermore, many of the judges, both Indian and European, struggled
to navigate the complex and diverse legal traditions in India.
 Resistance from the East India Company: The East India Company resisted some
aspects of these reforms, particularly when they threatened the Company’s autonomy in
administering justice. The Company’s officers were often reluctant to subject themselves
to British judicial scrutiny.
Conclusion:

The Plan of 1774 and the 1780 reorganization were important milestones in the development of
the judicial system in India. They aimed to centralize the judicial process, standardize the legal
system, and address jurisdictional conflicts between the various courts. While the reforms were
significant, they also faced substantial challenges related to the integration of British and Indian
legal systems, the resistance of local populations, and tensions between the Company and the
British Crown.

5. Regulating Act of 1773

The Regulating Act of 1773 was the first major attempt by the British Parliament to regulate the
affairs of the East India Company and bring greater control over its activities, including judicial
and administrative matters in India. The Act sought to address concerns about corruption and
mismanagement within the Company, as well as the growing power of the Company’s officials
in India.

Background:

By the late 18th century, the East India Company had expanded its influence over large parts of
India. The Company had its own army, revenue system, and administrative structure, but there
were growing concerns in Britain about the Company’s unaccountability and its role in
administering justice. Scandals involving Company officials, including corruption and
exploitation of Indian subjects, prompted calls for reform. The Regulating Act was introduced to
bring the Company under greater British parliamentary control and set up systems for a more
consistent and transparent administration.

Key Provisions of the Regulating Act of 1773:

 Creation of the Office of Governor-General: The Act created the office of the
Governor-General of India and established a Supreme Council of four members to
assist him in the governance of the Company’s territories. The first Governor-General
was Warren Hastings. The creation of a central authority aimed to bring greater
cohesion and coordination to the administration in India.
 Establishment of the Supreme Court at Calcutta: One of the most significant
provisions of the Regulating Act was the establishment of the Supreme Court at
Calcutta in 1774. This was the first high court in India, which was intended to centralize
judicial authority and provide a mechanism for the resolution of disputes involving
British subjects. However, as we have seen, the Supreme Court faced several challenges
and limitations in its early years.
 Regulation of the Company’s Affairs: The Act sought to regulate the activities of the
East India Company in India. It established a framework for the appointment of officials
and placed limits on the powers of the Company’s directors. This was an early attempt to
assert British governmental control over the Company’s operations in India.
  Control over Revenue: The Act provided the British Parliament with greater control
over the revenue and financial affairs of the East India Company. It aimed to prevent the
misuse of resources and corruption by the Company’s officials.
 Limits on the Power of the Governor-General: The Act limited the Governor-
General’s powers, particularly in relation to military matters. It required that the
Governor-General consult with the Supreme Council, which included other Company
officials, before making important decisions, particularly those relating to military
operations.

Conclusion:

The Regulating Act of 1773 was a significant step in the British government’s efforts to assert
control over the East India Company’s activities and to create a more structured and accountable
system of governance in India. It laid the groundwork for future reforms and set the stage for the
British Crown's increasing involvement in Indian affairs. However, the Act was only a partial
success, as it did not fully address the issues of corruption or the complexities of governing a
vast and diverse region like India.

6. The Supreme Court at Calcutta, its composition, power, and functions, and
failure of the Court

The Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, established in 1774, was a significant

development in the judicial history of British India. It was created under the Regulating Act of
1773 to act as the highest court of law in the British East India Company's territories. The
Supreme Court was intended to provide a legal framework for British subjects (Europeans) and
was supposed to bring a standardized system of justice. However, it faced a number of
challenges that ultimately led to its failure to function effectively.

Composition:

The composition of the Supreme Court at Calcutta was outlined in the Regulating Act of 1773.
The Court consisted of a Chief Justice and three other judges. The Chief Justice and judges
were appointed by the British Crown. The first Chief Justice was Sir Elijah Impey, who was a
significant figure in shaping the Court’s early workings.

 Judicial Officers: The judges were English barristers or lawyers from England, which
led to challenges due to their lack of familiarity with Indian customs, languages, and legal
traditions.
 European Focus: The Supreme Court was initially meant to deal with European
subjects, with jurisdiction limited to the European population, both British and non-
British. It did not have jurisdiction over the local Indian population who were instead
governed by their respective personal laws (Hindu, Muslim, or customary).
Powers:

The Supreme Court was granted broad powers, but its jurisdiction was limited. Its major powers
included:

 Jurisdiction over Europeans: It was given jurisdiction over the European residents of
India, including British officials and traders.
 Appeal from Lower Courts: It had the authority to hear appeals from the lower courts
like the Mayor's Court in Calcutta, which primarily dealt with European legal issues.
 Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction: The Court was empowered to hear both criminal and
civil cases involving Europeans. It could deal with a wide range of cases, from simple
property disputes to serious crimes like murder.

Functions:

 Civil and Criminal Matters: The Court could hear civil suits, such as property disputes,
and criminal cases, such as theft or murder. It was the final appellate court for European
cases in India.
 Admiralty Jurisdiction: It had jurisdiction over maritime cases, dealing with shipping,
trade-related issues, and admiralty law.
 Interpretation of English Law: The Supreme Court’s role also included interpreting
English law and applying it to the colonies. This was a problem when it came to Indian
subjects, as the law was often seen as irrelevant or impractical in Indian context.

Failure of the Court:

The Supreme Court's operations faced many challenges, leading to its failure to fulfill its
intended purpose. These included:

 Conflict with the East India Company: The Supreme Court often clashed with the East
India Company, especially in matters relating to the Company’s administrative decisions.
One prominent conflict was over the Company's revenue officers, who were not subject
to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, leading to frequent disputes.
 Jurisdictional Issues: The Court’s jurisdiction was poorly defined, and there were
frequent conflicts with local courts, particularly the Adalat Courts. This conflict arose
because the Adalat system was seen as more suited to local needs and Indian laws.
 Cultural Disconnect: The judges of the Supreme Court were entirely unfamiliar with
Indian customs, languages, and traditions. This lack of understanding led to the
application of laws that were often irrelevant or harsh to the Indian population. For
example, English law was applied in a society with a deeply entrenched system of
personal laws like Hindu and Muslim law, creating confusion and resentment.
 Limited Authority over Indian Population: The Supreme Court could only hear cases
involving Europeans. The majority of cases in India involved the Indian population, who
were not under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. As a result, the Court could not
address the judicial needs of the broader population.
  Complexity and Delays: The presence of foreign judges unfamiliar with local languages
and legal practices led to inefficiencies. The proceedings often became unnecessarily
slow and complex, alienating the Indian and European populations.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court of Calcutta was a critical attempt to centralize judicial authority in India
under British law, but it failed to fully meet its objectives due to jurisdictional conflicts, cultural
insensitivity, and its limited ability to address the legal needs of the majority of the population.
Its failure highlighted the challenges of applying English law to a diverse and complex society
like India, which ultimately led to further reforms, such as the Act of 1781, which attempted to
clarify the Court’s role.

7. Act of 1781

The Act of 1781, also known as the Regulation of the Supreme Court Act, was an important
piece of legislation aimed at resolving the issues created by the Supreme Court of Calcutta,
which had been established under the Regulating Act of 1773. The 1781 Act clarified the
relationship between the British East India Company’s administration and the Supreme Court,
addressing several problems that had emerged.

Context and Background:

By the time the Act of 1781 was passed, the Supreme Court had been in operation for about
seven years, and it had encountered numerous conflicts with the East India Company and local
authorities. Issues related to jurisdiction, the Court’s overreach into administrative matters, and
its inability to effectively deal with Indian subjects had created significant tension.

Key Provisions of the Act:

 Jurisdictional Limits: One of the most important provisions of the Act of 1781 was the
clarification of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. It defined that the Supreme Court would
only have jurisdiction over the European inhabitants of Calcutta and could not interfere in
the day-to-day administrative and judicial functions of the Company’s officials.
 Limiting the Supreme Court’s Power over the Company’s Officers: The Act ensured
that Company officials and the Governor-General were not subject to the Supreme
Court’s jurisdiction. This was important because the Supreme Court had previously tried
to assert control over the Company’s officers, especially in revenue matters, which was a
significant point of conflict.
 Appeals and Conflict Resolution: The Act also attempted to resolve conflicts between
the Supreme Court and other courts in India. It provided that cases involving Europeans
would be dealt with by the Supreme Court, while disputes between Company officials or
those involving Indian subjects were to be resolved by the Adalat system or the
Company’s officers.
  Judicial Power in the Mofussil: The Act further clarified the limits of the Supreme
Court’s authority, particularly in the rural areas (the Mofussil). This system of rural
courts, where native law was applied, was to remain separate from the Supreme Court’s
operations.

Impact:

 The Act of 1781 represented a compromise between the growing authority of the
Supreme Court and the interests of the East India Company. It was designed to maintain
the supremacy of the Company in administrative matters while providing a judicial
structure for Europeans and resolving issues of legal overreach.
 The Act did not fundamentally change the nature of the judiciary in India but rather
streamlined the interaction between the English judicial system and the Company’s
governance, ensuring that the Court did not impede the Company’s operations in India.

Conclusion:

The Act of 1781 successfully curtailed the Supreme Court's overreach by setting clear limits on
its jurisdiction and authority, thus allowing the East India Company to retain control over its
administrative functions. It was a critical step in balancing the judicial power of the British
Crown and the operational needs of the East India Company.

8. Supreme Court vis-a-vis Moffussil Courts

The relationship between the Supreme Court at Calcutta and the Mofussil Courts (the district-
level courts) was complex, reflecting the colonial tensions between British law and indigenous
legal traditions. The Mofussil Courts, which operated in the rural areas of India, were initially
governed by traditional Hindu, Muslim, or customary laws. However, with the establishment of
the Supreme Court in Calcutta, the jurisdiction of the two courts often overlapped, leading to
jurisdictional conflicts and confusion.

Key Issues:

1. Jurisdictional Conflict:
o The Supreme Court was initially supposed to handle cases involving Europeans,
and its jurisdiction extended only over British subjects. However, many European
officials and settlers lived in the Mofussil regions, and the question of whether
their cases should be handled by the Supreme Court or the local Mofussil Courts
was often contentious.
o Additionally, the Mofussil Courts continued to apply traditional Indian laws,
which were sometimes in direct conflict with English law. This created a situation
where a single case might be subject to two different sets of legal principles.
2. Power Struggles:
 oThe East India Company, which controlled the Mofussil Courts, frequently found
itself at odds with the British judicial system. The Company officials and their
actions were outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but conflicts arose
when the Company’s legal interests were challenged in the Mofussil Courts.
o The tension between the Supreme Court’s desire for uniformity in the legal
system and the Company’s reliance on local laws for governance often led to
friction. The Company wanted to retain control over the judicial processes in the
rural areas, while the British authorities in Calcutta pushed for the establishment
of a single, unified judicial system.
3. Cultural and Legal Incompatibility:
o The Mofussil Courts, which were run by local officers, applied Hindu and
Muslim laws based on local customs. These legal traditions were fundamentally
different from English common law, which was being introduced by the British
judiciary.
o The judges in the Supreme Court, unfamiliar with Indian traditions, often imposed
English law on the Indian population, resulting in tensions and a failure to
integrate local legal practices with the new colonial system.
4. Functionality and Effectiveness:
o The Mofussil Courts were better equipped to handle local cases, especially those
involving the Indian population, because they were familiar with the customs and
languages of the people. The Supreme Court, however, could not fully engage
with the complexities of these local legal systems, as its primary focus was on
European subjects.
o The Mofussil Courts were also often understaffed and lacked the proper training
to deal with legal matters in a consistent or organized manner. While the Supreme
Court in Calcutta had the potential to offer a more structured and standardized
approach to legal issues, it was unable to effectively manage the needs of the
diverse and widespread Indian population.

Conclusion:

The relationship between the Supreme Court and the Mofussil Courts was characterized by
jurisdictional conflicts, cultural misunderstandings, and legal tensions. While the Supreme Court
sought to bring British law to India, the Mofussil Courts remained more attuned to the local
context, creating a divide between the legal systems of the ruling colonial power and the
indigenous population.

9. Judicial Measures of Cornwallis 1787, 1790, 1793

Lord Cornwallis, the Governor-General of India from 1786 to 1793, introduced a series of
significant judicial reforms that aimed to improve the functioning of the judicial system in
British India. These reforms were aimed at addressing the inefficiencies, corruption, and
inconsistency in the judicial administration that had existed under the East India Company and
earlier colonial structures.
Judicial Reforms of 1787:

In 1787, Cornwallis introduced major reforms in the judicial system, which can be understood as
part of a broader effort to formalize and standardize the British legal system in India. Cornwallis
sought to reduce the influence of the East India Company’s officials in legal matters and ensure
that the judiciary was separate from the executive, as he believed that the combination of these
two functions had led to corruption and abuse of power.

 Separation of Judicial and Executive Powers: One of Cornwallis' most important

reforms was the formal separation of judicial and executive functions. Prior to
Cornwallis, British officers in India performed both administrative and judicial roles,
which led to conflicts of interest and widespread corruption. Cornwallis’ reforms created
a clearer distinction between administrative and judicial functions.
 Establishment of District Courts: Cornwallis also sought to streamline the judicial
system at the district level. He established District Courts to be presided over by
European judges. These courts were given responsibility for hearing cases involving
Europeans and, in some cases, the Indian population. The District Courts were positioned
as the key courts in the Mofussil (rural areas), and they were supposed to deal with civil
and criminal cases.
 Civil and Criminal Divisions: Cornwallis restructured the judicial system into separate
civil and criminal courts to ensure more specialized adjudication. The civil courts dealt
with property disputes, family matters, and contracts, while the criminal courts dealt with
crimes such as theft, murder, and violence.
 Appeal System: An important feature of the 1787 reforms was the establishment of an
appeal system. It ensured that decisions made by lower courts could be challenged in
higher courts. The Sadar Diwani Adalat (Civil) and Sadar Nizamat Adalat (Criminal)
in Calcutta continued to function as appellate courts for cases from the Mofussil (rural
regions).

Judicial Reforms of 1790:

The judicial reforms of 1790 were focused on addressing issues related to judicial appointments
and improving the judicial process. Cornwallis was keen on ensuring that the judicial officers
were both competent and ethical.

 Appointment of Judges: Cornwallis introduced a more structured system for the

appointment of judges. Judges in the district courts were to be appointed based on merit
rather than political connections. He believed that a well-qualified judiciary would be
more efficient and impartial in its administration of justice.
 Training for Judges: Cornwallis also encouraged the establishment of mechanisms for
the training of judges. He emphasized that judges needed to have a deep understanding of
British law as well as an awareness of the local customs and legal traditions. This helped
improve the quality of judicial decision-making.
Judicial Reforms of 1793:

The most significant reforms in Cornwallis’ tenure came in 1793, following his experience with
the earlier attempts at judicial restructuring. These reforms were aimed at increasing the
efficiency and transparency of the judicial system.

 The Cornwallis Code: The Judicial Plan of 1793, often referred to as the Cornwallis
Code, introduced important changes to the legal system. It was an attempt to codify the
legal processes and make them more consistent across British India.
o The Cornwallis Code introduced uniform judicial procedures, which sought to
standardize court processes, ensure better documentation, and provide clearer
guidelines on the conduct of trials. This was a significant move toward making
the judicial process more predictable and transparent.
o Cornwallis also created provisions for the systematic recording of court
judgments, ensuring that precedents were established and followed in future
cases.
 Legal Reforms: Cornwallis introduced new laws and rules governing both civil and
criminal law. For example, in the realm of criminal justice, reforms were introduced to
ensure that punishment was appropriate to the crime and that there was greater
accountability for judicial officers.
 Consolidation of Judicial Authority: Cornwallis further strengthened the authority of
the District Courts, ensuring that they were the highest courts for cases in the Mofussil
regions. This meant that the influence of the Supreme Court of Calcutta over rural
areas was minimized, and the local judicial system was made more autonomous.

Impact and Challenges of Cornwallis’ Reforms:

 Strengthened Judicial System: Cornwallis’ reforms contributed to the creation of a

more organized and structured judicial system. The separation of powers between the
executive and judiciary, along with the establishment of district-level courts, was
intended to make justice more accessible and impartial.
 Cultural Disconnect: Despite the structural changes, there were still challenges in
reconciling British common law with local Indian laws and customs. The presence of
European judges in the district courts, who were unfamiliar with local legal traditions,
continued to create problems in understanding and applying Indian customs and personal
laws (Hindu and Muslim).
 Resistance from Indian Population: The reforms were also met with some resistance
from the local population, who were uncomfortable with the imposition of a foreign legal
system. Traditional courts and local customs were often at odds with the British legal
framework.
10. Progress of the Adalat System under Sir John Shore

Sir John Shore succeeded Warren Hastings as the Governor-General of India in 1793 and
served until 1798. While Cornwallis is often credited with the initial reforms in the judicial
system, Shore’s tenure saw significant developments in the Adalat system, and his efforts
continued to build on the foundations laid by his predecessors.

Consolidation of Judicial Reforms:

Shore was committed to continuing and consolidating the judicial reforms initiated by
Cornwallis. He focused on ensuring the smooth functioning of the Adalat system, which had
been established as part of earlier reforms to deal with both civil and criminal cases.

 Adalat System at the Mofussil Level: Under Shore’s governance, the Adalat system at
the Mofussil (district level) continued to be a vital part of the judicial system. These
courts, though initially meant for handling local disputes, were given greater
organizational structure. Shore emphasized improving the functioning of these courts, as
they played a critical role in administering justice in rural and remote areas where the
British Supreme Court did not have direct jurisdiction.
 Integration of European and Indian Judges: Shore’s policy was to retain the presence
of both European and Indian judges in the Adalat system. The Indian judges (Qazis and
Pundits) continued to advise on matters involving Hindu and Muslim personal laws.
However, there was an increasing emphasis on having European officers supervise the
proceedings to ensure that they adhered to British legal standards. Shore balanced the
integration of Indian law with British practices, although this remained a complex
challenge.

Strengthening the Judicial Process:

Shore's administration worked towards increasing the efficiency and transparency of the Adalat
courts. He aimed to ensure that justice was administered swiftly and without corruption, two
issues that had plagued the earlier system.

 Regular Monitoring and Supervision: The performance of judicial officers was

regularly monitored, and Shore sought to ensure that there was accountability at all
levels. He ensured that the district judges and other judicial officers were regularly
supervised to prevent the kind of corruption and negligence that had been prevalent in
earlier years.
 Training for Judges: While the reforms of Cornwallis had emphasized training for
judges, Shore continued this practice. He introduced measures to further improve the
legal education of the judges in the Adalat courts. They were expected to be familiar
with the principles of British law while respecting the local customs and traditions.
 Improvement in Court Procedures: Shore worked on improving the administrative
efficiency of the Adalat courts. This included introducing standardized procedures for
filing cases, conducting hearings, and delivering judgments. The goal was to make the
judicial process more transparent and accessible.
Challenges and Limitations:

Despite these efforts, the Adalat system under Shore still faced significant challenges:

 Cultural and Legal Tensions: The use of British law alongside traditional Indian law
continued to be a point of friction. There were tensions between the needs of the local
population and the imposition of British legal norms.
 Limited Reach of the Adalat System: While the Adalat courts were crucial in rural
areas, they still could not fully replace the deeply rooted local judicial practices. The lack
of resources and trained staff in the district-level courts often meant that the system was
inefficient.

Conclusion:

Under Sir John Shore, the Adalat system made significant progress in terms of its organization,
efficiency, and the integration of both European and Indian legal practices. However, it
continued to face challenges, particularly in reconciling British legal standards with local
customs. Shore’s tenure marked an important period in the evolution of the judicial system in
British India, with continued attempts to create a more structured and functional legal framework
across the country.