NCERT Textbook: Administration of Justice in British India | Legal Studies for Class 11 - Humanities/Arts PDF Download

 Page 1


138
Read the following passage and debate on the impact of British laws in India.
During the Great War of 1914-18, the British had instituted censorship of the press and permitted 
detention without trial. On the recommendation of a committee chaired by Sir Sidney Rowlatt, 
these tough measures were continued. In response, Gandhiji called for a countrywide campaign 
against the 'Rowlatt Act'. In towns across North and West India, life came to a standstill, as shops 
shut down and schools closed in response to the bandh call. The protests were particularly intense 
in the Punjab, where many men had served on the British side in the War – expecting to be 
rewarded for their service. Instead they were given the Rowlatt Act. Gandhiji was detained while 
proceeding to the Punjab, even as prominent local Congressmen were arrested. The situation in 
the province grew progressively more tense, reaching a bloody climax in Amritsar in April 1919, 
when a British Brigadier ordered his troops to open fire on a nationalist meeting. More than four 
hundred people were killed in what is known as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
NCERT Textbook in History for Class XII
-Themes in Indian History -Part III
The British rule in India is responsible for the development of the Common Law based legal system in 
India.  In this lesson we will learn more about the administration of justice and law reforms during the 
British period in India.
The development of the British Common Law based system can be traced to the arrival and expansion 
th
of the British East India Company in India in the 17 Century. The East India Company gained a 
foothold in India in 1612 after Mughal emperor Jahangir granted it the rights to establish a factory in 
the port of Surat. In 1640, the East India Company established a second factory in Madras (now 
Chennai) on the southeastern coast. Bombay Island, a former Portuguese outpost was gifted to 
England as dowry in the marriage of Catherine of Braganza to Charles II and was later leased to the 
East India Company in 1668.
In the early seventeenth century, the Crown, through a series of Charters, established a judicial 
system in the Indian towns of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, basically for the purposes of 
administering justice within the establishments of the British East India Company. The Governor and 
the Council of these towns formulated these judicial systems independently.  The Courts in Bombay 
and Madras were called Admiralty Courts, whereas the court in Calcutta was called Collector's Court. 
These courts had the authority to decide both civil and criminal matters. Interestingly, the courts did 
not derive their authority from the Crown, but from the East India Company. 
The Charter issued by King George I on 24 September 1726 marks an important development in Indian 
UNIT 03: CHAPTER 2
Administration of Justice in British India
Page 2


138
Read the following passage and debate on the impact of British laws in India.
During the Great War of 1914-18, the British had instituted censorship of the press and permitted 
detention without trial. On the recommendation of a committee chaired by Sir Sidney Rowlatt, 
these tough measures were continued. In response, Gandhiji called for a countrywide campaign 
against the 'Rowlatt Act'. In towns across North and West India, life came to a standstill, as shops 
shut down and schools closed in response to the bandh call. The protests were particularly intense 
in the Punjab, where many men had served on the British side in the War – expecting to be 
rewarded for their service. Instead they were given the Rowlatt Act. Gandhiji was detained while 
proceeding to the Punjab, even as prominent local Congressmen were arrested. The situation in 
the province grew progressively more tense, reaching a bloody climax in Amritsar in April 1919, 
when a British Brigadier ordered his troops to open fire on a nationalist meeting. More than four 
hundred people were killed in what is known as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
NCERT Textbook in History for Class XII
-Themes in Indian History -Part III
The British rule in India is responsible for the development of the Common Law based legal system in 
India.  In this lesson we will learn more about the administration of justice and law reforms during the 
British period in India.
The development of the British Common Law based system can be traced to the arrival and expansion 
th
of the British East India Company in India in the 17 Century. The East India Company gained a 
foothold in India in 1612 after Mughal emperor Jahangir granted it the rights to establish a factory in 
the port of Surat. In 1640, the East India Company established a second factory in Madras (now 
Chennai) on the southeastern coast. Bombay Island, a former Portuguese outpost was gifted to 
England as dowry in the marriage of Catherine of Braganza to Charles II and was later leased to the 
East India Company in 1668.
In the early seventeenth century, the Crown, through a series of Charters, established a judicial 
system in the Indian towns of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, basically for the purposes of 
administering justice within the establishments of the British East India Company. The Governor and 
the Council of these towns formulated these judicial systems independently.  The Courts in Bombay 
and Madras were called Admiralty Courts, whereas the court in Calcutta was called Collector's Court. 
These courts had the authority to decide both civil and criminal matters. Interestingly, the courts did 
not derive their authority from the Crown, but from the East India Company. 
The Charter issued by King George I on 24 September 1726 marks an important development in Indian 
UNIT 03: CHAPTER 2
Administration of Justice in British India
139
legal history. This Charter forms the basis for the establishment of Crown's courts in India. The British 
East India Company requested King George to issue a Charter by which special power could be granted 
to the Company. Accepting the Letters Patent of 1726 and the subsequent Charters, had, in effect, 
applied English law to British India as will be discussed here after.
The expansion of its establishments brought new challenges to the East India Company. The 
Company requested the King to issue a Charter by which special powers could be granted to it.  
The Company was granted Charter by King George I in 1726 to establish “Mayor's Courts” in 
Madras, Bombay and Calcutta (now Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata respectively). Mayor's 
Courts were not courts of the Company, but courts of the King of England. Mayor's courts 
superseded all existing courts established in the above places.  The Mayor's Courts were 
authorized 'to try, hear and determine all civil suits, actions and pleas' that may arise within 
the three towns or within the factories of the Company. The Court consisted of a Mayor and 
nine Aldermen, seven of whom, including the Mayor, were required to be naturally born 
British subjects. Aldermen were elected from among the leading inhabitants of the 
settlement to hold the position for life. The Mayor was elected from the Aldermen. 
The Mayor's Courts contributed significantly to the formulation of a uniform pattern of 
judicial functioning in India. The Mayor's Courts administered English law, which was assumed 
to be the lex loci ('law of the place') of the settlement. The inhabitants of the settlement 
were governed by the English law, irrespective of their nationality. English law did not extend 
outside the settlements, and there the Indians were subject to their own laws.  
The Charter of 1726 did not specify the law to be applied by the Mayor's Courts. The Charter 
merely stated that the Court was required to 'give judgment and sentence according to 
justice and right'. However, based on the past practice and in the light of the 1661 Charter, the 
then existing English law, or principles of English Common Law and Equity were applied.  It is 
generally understood that the Charter of 1726 indirectly brought into application the laws of 
England- both Common Law and statute law, into the three British Settlements in India. This 
is one of the distinctive outcomes of the 1726 Charter.
Appeals from the Mayor's Court were made to the Court of Governor and the Council.  The 
Governor and five members of the Council were appointed Justices of Peace and constituted a 
criminal court of Oyer and Terminer (a partial translation of the Anglo-French oyeretterminer 
which literally means 'to hear and determine'). The Court of Governor and Council were 
required to meet four times a year for the trial of all offences, except that of high treason. 
However, a second appeal in cases valued at 1,000 pagodas (see picture below) or more, was 
available to the King-in-council in England.
1. Establishment of Mayor's Courts
Page 3


138
Read the following passage and debate on the impact of British laws in India.
During the Great War of 1914-18, the British had instituted censorship of the press and permitted 
detention without trial. On the recommendation of a committee chaired by Sir Sidney Rowlatt, 
these tough measures were continued. In response, Gandhiji called for a countrywide campaign 
against the 'Rowlatt Act'. In towns across North and West India, life came to a standstill, as shops 
shut down and schools closed in response to the bandh call. The protests were particularly intense 
in the Punjab, where many men had served on the British side in the War – expecting to be 
rewarded for their service. Instead they were given the Rowlatt Act. Gandhiji was detained while 
proceeding to the Punjab, even as prominent local Congressmen were arrested. The situation in 
the province grew progressively more tense, reaching a bloody climax in Amritsar in April 1919, 
when a British Brigadier ordered his troops to open fire on a nationalist meeting. More than four 
hundred people were killed in what is known as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
NCERT Textbook in History for Class XII
-Themes in Indian History -Part III
The British rule in India is responsible for the development of the Common Law based legal system in 
India.  In this lesson we will learn more about the administration of justice and law reforms during the 
British period in India.
The development of the British Common Law based system can be traced to the arrival and expansion 
th
of the British East India Company in India in the 17 Century. The East India Company gained a 
foothold in India in 1612 after Mughal emperor Jahangir granted it the rights to establish a factory in 
the port of Surat. In 1640, the East India Company established a second factory in Madras (now 
Chennai) on the southeastern coast. Bombay Island, a former Portuguese outpost was gifted to 
England as dowry in the marriage of Catherine of Braganza to Charles II and was later leased to the 
East India Company in 1668.
In the early seventeenth century, the Crown, through a series of Charters, established a judicial 
system in the Indian towns of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, basically for the purposes of 
administering justice within the establishments of the British East India Company. The Governor and 
the Council of these towns formulated these judicial systems independently.  The Courts in Bombay 
and Madras were called Admiralty Courts, whereas the court in Calcutta was called Collector's Court. 
These courts had the authority to decide both civil and criminal matters. Interestingly, the courts did 
not derive their authority from the Crown, but from the East India Company. 
The Charter issued by King George I on 24 September 1726 marks an important development in Indian 
UNIT 03: CHAPTER 2
Administration of Justice in British India
139
legal history. This Charter forms the basis for the establishment of Crown's courts in India. The British 
East India Company requested King George to issue a Charter by which special power could be granted 
to the Company. Accepting the Letters Patent of 1726 and the subsequent Charters, had, in effect, 
applied English law to British India as will be discussed here after.
The expansion of its establishments brought new challenges to the East India Company. The 
Company requested the King to issue a Charter by which special powers could be granted to it.  
The Company was granted Charter by King George I in 1726 to establish “Mayor's Courts” in 
Madras, Bombay and Calcutta (now Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata respectively). Mayor's 
Courts were not courts of the Company, but courts of the King of England. Mayor's courts 
superseded all existing courts established in the above places.  The Mayor's Courts were 
authorized 'to try, hear and determine all civil suits, actions and pleas' that may arise within 
the three towns or within the factories of the Company. The Court consisted of a Mayor and 
nine Aldermen, seven of whom, including the Mayor, were required to be naturally born 
British subjects. Aldermen were elected from among the leading inhabitants of the 
settlement to hold the position for life. The Mayor was elected from the Aldermen. 
The Mayor's Courts contributed significantly to the formulation of a uniform pattern of 
judicial functioning in India. The Mayor's Courts administered English law, which was assumed 
to be the lex loci ('law of the place') of the settlement. The inhabitants of the settlement 
were governed by the English law, irrespective of their nationality. English law did not extend 
outside the settlements, and there the Indians were subject to their own laws.  
The Charter of 1726 did not specify the law to be applied by the Mayor's Courts. The Charter 
merely stated that the Court was required to 'give judgment and sentence according to 
justice and right'. However, based on the past practice and in the light of the 1661 Charter, the 
then existing English law, or principles of English Common Law and Equity were applied.  It is 
generally understood that the Charter of 1726 indirectly brought into application the laws of 
England- both Common Law and statute law, into the three British Settlements in India. This 
is one of the distinctive outcomes of the 1726 Charter.
Appeals from the Mayor's Court were made to the Court of Governor and the Council.  The 
Governor and five members of the Council were appointed Justices of Peace and constituted a 
criminal court of Oyer and Terminer (a partial translation of the Anglo-French oyeretterminer 
which literally means 'to hear and determine'). The Court of Governor and Council were 
required to meet four times a year for the trial of all offences, except that of high treason. 
However, a second appeal in cases valued at 1,000 pagodas (see picture below) or more, was 
available to the King-in-council in England.
1. Establishment of Mayor's Courts
140
Source: http://www.chennaimuseum.org/draft/gallery/04/01/coin8.htm
Figure – 1: Pagodas in Circulation during the Rule of the British East India Company
The Mayor's Courts established under the Charter of 1726 had severe limitations. There was no 
clarity regarding the applicable law, although the Company made considerable efforts to 
apply the English Law. The jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court over natives was relatively 
uncertain.  In several instances, the Mayor's Court annoyed the natives by applying the 
principles of English Law, completely disregarding their personal laws and customs.
In 1746, the French occupied Madras, after which the functioning of the Mayor's Court was 
suspended in that City. However, the French surrendered Madras to the British in 1749 after 
the conclusion of the peace treaty of Aix-La Chappelle. Using this opportunity, the Company 
requested the King to remove some difficulties related to the 1726 Charter. King George II 
issued another Charter on 8 January 1753, which by and large left the 1726 Charter intact.
By virtue of the 1753 Charter, the Mayor Courts were re-established in the three settlements 
with the same jurisdictions and powers as in the Charter of 1726. To avoid disputes between 
the Governor and Council, the Charter brought the Mayor's Court under the control of the 
Governor and the Council. The Mayor, instead of being selected by the Aldermen was to be 
selected by the Governor and Council. Furthermore, suits and other actions by natives were 
expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court unless both parties had 
submitted them to their determination. The jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court was restricted 
to suits of the value of over five (5) pagodas.
It is notable that Courts such as the Mayor's Courts were established for deciding mainly the 
disputes of the British natives or other foreigners. Therefore, in all the three settlements, 
different types of courts existed to decide the cases of the natives.  In Madras, the Choultry 
courts existed to decide cases up to the value of 20 pagodas. In other words, Choultry courts 
heard, by and large, petty cases and continued up to the year 1800. In Calcutta, the natives 
were subject to the Zamindars' courts. The East India Company as the Zamindar, administered 
these courts. Zamindars' courts decided civil matters, viz, issues involving land, property and 
personal wrongs. It is also reported that the Zamindar's Courts and the Mayor's Court had 
disputes relating to jurisdiction on certain civil matters. Justices of Peace were appointed 
Page 4


138
Read the following passage and debate on the impact of British laws in India.
During the Great War of 1914-18, the British had instituted censorship of the press and permitted 
detention without trial. On the recommendation of a committee chaired by Sir Sidney Rowlatt, 
these tough measures were continued. In response, Gandhiji called for a countrywide campaign 
against the 'Rowlatt Act'. In towns across North and West India, life came to a standstill, as shops 
shut down and schools closed in response to the bandh call. The protests were particularly intense 
in the Punjab, where many men had served on the British side in the War – expecting to be 
rewarded for their service. Instead they were given the Rowlatt Act. Gandhiji was detained while 
proceeding to the Punjab, even as prominent local Congressmen were arrested. The situation in 
the province grew progressively more tense, reaching a bloody climax in Amritsar in April 1919, 
when a British Brigadier ordered his troops to open fire on a nationalist meeting. More than four 
hundred people were killed in what is known as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
NCERT Textbook in History for Class XII
-Themes in Indian History -Part III
The British rule in India is responsible for the development of the Common Law based legal system in 
India.  In this lesson we will learn more about the administration of justice and law reforms during the 
British period in India.
The development of the British Common Law based system can be traced to the arrival and expansion 
th
of the British East India Company in India in the 17 Century. The East India Company gained a 
foothold in India in 1612 after Mughal emperor Jahangir granted it the rights to establish a factory in 
the port of Surat. In 1640, the East India Company established a second factory in Madras (now 
Chennai) on the southeastern coast. Bombay Island, a former Portuguese outpost was gifted to 
England as dowry in the marriage of Catherine of Braganza to Charles II and was later leased to the 
East India Company in 1668.
In the early seventeenth century, the Crown, through a series of Charters, established a judicial 
system in the Indian towns of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, basically for the purposes of 
administering justice within the establishments of the British East India Company. The Governor and 
the Council of these towns formulated these judicial systems independently.  The Courts in Bombay 
and Madras were called Admiralty Courts, whereas the court in Calcutta was called Collector's Court. 
These courts had the authority to decide both civil and criminal matters. Interestingly, the courts did 
not derive their authority from the Crown, but from the East India Company. 
The Charter issued by King George I on 24 September 1726 marks an important development in Indian 
UNIT 03: CHAPTER 2
Administration of Justice in British India
139
legal history. This Charter forms the basis for the establishment of Crown's courts in India. The British 
East India Company requested King George to issue a Charter by which special power could be granted 
to the Company. Accepting the Letters Patent of 1726 and the subsequent Charters, had, in effect, 
applied English law to British India as will be discussed here after.
The expansion of its establishments brought new challenges to the East India Company. The 
Company requested the King to issue a Charter by which special powers could be granted to it.  
The Company was granted Charter by King George I in 1726 to establish “Mayor's Courts” in 
Madras, Bombay and Calcutta (now Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata respectively). Mayor's 
Courts were not courts of the Company, but courts of the King of England. Mayor's courts 
superseded all existing courts established in the above places.  The Mayor's Courts were 
authorized 'to try, hear and determine all civil suits, actions and pleas' that may arise within 
the three towns or within the factories of the Company. The Court consisted of a Mayor and 
nine Aldermen, seven of whom, including the Mayor, were required to be naturally born 
British subjects. Aldermen were elected from among the leading inhabitants of the 
settlement to hold the position for life. The Mayor was elected from the Aldermen. 
The Mayor's Courts contributed significantly to the formulation of a uniform pattern of 
judicial functioning in India. The Mayor's Courts administered English law, which was assumed 
to be the lex loci ('law of the place') of the settlement. The inhabitants of the settlement 
were governed by the English law, irrespective of their nationality. English law did not extend 
outside the settlements, and there the Indians were subject to their own laws.  
The Charter of 1726 did not specify the law to be applied by the Mayor's Courts. The Charter 
merely stated that the Court was required to 'give judgment and sentence according to 
justice and right'. However, based on the past practice and in the light of the 1661 Charter, the 
then existing English law, or principles of English Common Law and Equity were applied.  It is 
generally understood that the Charter of 1726 indirectly brought into application the laws of 
England- both Common Law and statute law, into the three British Settlements in India. This 
is one of the distinctive outcomes of the 1726 Charter.
Appeals from the Mayor's Court were made to the Court of Governor and the Council.  The 
Governor and five members of the Council were appointed Justices of Peace and constituted a 
criminal court of Oyer and Terminer (a partial translation of the Anglo-French oyeretterminer 
which literally means 'to hear and determine'). The Court of Governor and Council were 
required to meet four times a year for the trial of all offences, except that of high treason. 
However, a second appeal in cases valued at 1,000 pagodas (see picture below) or more, was 
available to the King-in-council in England.
1. Establishment of Mayor's Courts
140
Source: http://www.chennaimuseum.org/draft/gallery/04/01/coin8.htm
Figure – 1: Pagodas in Circulation during the Rule of the British East India Company
The Mayor's Courts established under the Charter of 1726 had severe limitations. There was no 
clarity regarding the applicable law, although the Company made considerable efforts to 
apply the English Law. The jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court over natives was relatively 
uncertain.  In several instances, the Mayor's Court annoyed the natives by applying the 
principles of English Law, completely disregarding their personal laws and customs.
In 1746, the French occupied Madras, after which the functioning of the Mayor's Court was 
suspended in that City. However, the French surrendered Madras to the British in 1749 after 
the conclusion of the peace treaty of Aix-La Chappelle. Using this opportunity, the Company 
requested the King to remove some difficulties related to the 1726 Charter. King George II 
issued another Charter on 8 January 1753, which by and large left the 1726 Charter intact.
By virtue of the 1753 Charter, the Mayor Courts were re-established in the three settlements 
with the same jurisdictions and powers as in the Charter of 1726. To avoid disputes between 
the Governor and Council, the Charter brought the Mayor's Court under the control of the 
Governor and the Council. The Mayor, instead of being selected by the Aldermen was to be 
selected by the Governor and Council. Furthermore, suits and other actions by natives were 
expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court unless both parties had 
submitted them to their determination. The jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court was restricted 
to suits of the value of over five (5) pagodas.
It is notable that Courts such as the Mayor's Courts were established for deciding mainly the 
disputes of the British natives or other foreigners. Therefore, in all the three settlements, 
different types of courts existed to decide the cases of the natives.  In Madras, the Choultry 
courts existed to decide cases up to the value of 20 pagodas. In other words, Choultry courts 
heard, by and large, petty cases and continued up to the year 1800. In Calcutta, the natives 
were subject to the Zamindars' courts. The East India Company as the Zamindar, administered 
these courts. Zamindars' courts decided civil matters, viz, issues involving land, property and 
personal wrongs. It is also reported that the Zamindar's Courts and the Mayor's Court had 
disputes relating to jurisdiction on certain civil matters. Justices of Peace were appointed 
141
in Calcutta to decide criminal matters. However, in Bombay no separate courts were 
established to decide disputes among the natives. The reason was that the Company claimed 
complete sovereignty over the island and did not want to treat the natives differently. 
Judicial functions of the East India Company expanded substantially after its victory in the 
Battle of Plassey (1757). The battle established the Company rule in Bengal, which expanded 
over much of India for the next hundred years. After this battle, the real authority of the 
Nawabs of Bengal passed on to the British. In the year 1765, Robert Clive secured in 
perpetuity for the East India Company, the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa from the Mughal 
Emperor Shah Alam, who was still considered to be the Ruler of the Country, against a 
payment of Rs. 26 lakhs. By this grant, the Company claimed to have become the virtual 
sovereign and master of this territory. At that time, the Nawab, who was the Subedar of 
Bengal, represented the Mughal Emperor. While exercising his authority, the Nawab 
performed two main functions: (i) Diwani, i.e. collection of revenue and civil justice, and 
(ii) the Nizamat, i.e. the military power and criminal justice. The East India Company 
obtained Diwanirights from the Mughal Emperor and the Nawab gave it Nizamat work. 
However, the administration of criminal justice was left with the Nawab, who was responsible 
for maintaining law and order. 
Despite its success in Bengal, the East India Company was debt-ridden at that time and had to 
pay significant sums of money to the British Government to maintain monopoly rights in India. 
The affairs of the company were poorly managed and the natives were unhappy. Even the Tea 
Act of 1773, which triggered the American War of Independence, was designed to rescue the 
near bankrupt company and to generate money from the colonies. In 1773, Lord North, the 
then Prime Minister of England, decided to introduce some form of legal government to 
manage the Indian possessions of the East India Company.      
As the East India Company acquired formal political power over substantial areas in eastern 
India, the British Parliament grew more concerned about the need to regulate its activities. In 
1773, the British Parliament passed the Regulating Act (13 Geo, III Ch.63).  The Regulating Act 
of 1773 made some important changes in the structure of the Company, and appointed a 
Governor General and four councilors at Fort William in Calcutta. The Regulating Act of 1773 
is widely considered as the first attempt by the British Parliament to construct a regular 
government for India and to intervene in the control of the Company's administration. The 
Regulating Act of 1773 also superseded the provisions of the 1753 Charter. 
The Regulating Act of 1773 was the first attempt at creating a separate and somewhat 
independent judicial organ in India, under the direct control of the King. The Chief Justice 
and other puisne (junior) judges were appointed by the King. Section 13 of the Regulating Act 
empowered the Crown to establish by Charter, a Supreme Court of Judicature at fort William 
2. Regulating Act of 1773
Page 5


138
Read the following passage and debate on the impact of British laws in India.
During the Great War of 1914-18, the British had instituted censorship of the press and permitted 
detention without trial. On the recommendation of a committee chaired by Sir Sidney Rowlatt, 
these tough measures were continued. In response, Gandhiji called for a countrywide campaign 
against the 'Rowlatt Act'. In towns across North and West India, life came to a standstill, as shops 
shut down and schools closed in response to the bandh call. The protests were particularly intense 
in the Punjab, where many men had served on the British side in the War – expecting to be 
rewarded for their service. Instead they were given the Rowlatt Act. Gandhiji was detained while 
proceeding to the Punjab, even as prominent local Congressmen were arrested. The situation in 
the province grew progressively more tense, reaching a bloody climax in Amritsar in April 1919, 
when a British Brigadier ordered his troops to open fire on a nationalist meeting. More than four 
hundred people were killed in what is known as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
NCERT Textbook in History for Class XII
-Themes in Indian History -Part III
The British rule in India is responsible for the development of the Common Law based legal system in 
India.  In this lesson we will learn more about the administration of justice and law reforms during the 
British period in India.
The development of the British Common Law based system can be traced to the arrival and expansion 
th
of the British East India Company in India in the 17 Century. The East India Company gained a 
foothold in India in 1612 after Mughal emperor Jahangir granted it the rights to establish a factory in 
the port of Surat. In 1640, the East India Company established a second factory in Madras (now 
Chennai) on the southeastern coast. Bombay Island, a former Portuguese outpost was gifted to 
England as dowry in the marriage of Catherine of Braganza to Charles II and was later leased to the 
East India Company in 1668.
In the early seventeenth century, the Crown, through a series of Charters, established a judicial 
system in the Indian towns of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, basically for the purposes of 
administering justice within the establishments of the British East India Company. The Governor and 
the Council of these towns formulated these judicial systems independently.  The Courts in Bombay 
and Madras were called Admiralty Courts, whereas the court in Calcutta was called Collector's Court. 
These courts had the authority to decide both civil and criminal matters. Interestingly, the courts did 
not derive their authority from the Crown, but from the East India Company. 
The Charter issued by King George I on 24 September 1726 marks an important development in Indian 
UNIT 03: CHAPTER 2
Administration of Justice in British India
139
legal history. This Charter forms the basis for the establishment of Crown's courts in India. The British 
East India Company requested King George to issue a Charter by which special power could be granted 
to the Company. Accepting the Letters Patent of 1726 and the subsequent Charters, had, in effect, 
applied English law to British India as will be discussed here after.
The expansion of its establishments brought new challenges to the East India Company. The 
Company requested the King to issue a Charter by which special powers could be granted to it.  
The Company was granted Charter by King George I in 1726 to establish “Mayor's Courts” in 
Madras, Bombay and Calcutta (now Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata respectively). Mayor's 
Courts were not courts of the Company, but courts of the King of England. Mayor's courts 
superseded all existing courts established in the above places.  The Mayor's Courts were 
authorized 'to try, hear and determine all civil suits, actions and pleas' that may arise within 
the three towns or within the factories of the Company. The Court consisted of a Mayor and 
nine Aldermen, seven of whom, including the Mayor, were required to be naturally born 
British subjects. Aldermen were elected from among the leading inhabitants of the 
settlement to hold the position for life. The Mayor was elected from the Aldermen. 
The Mayor's Courts contributed significantly to the formulation of a uniform pattern of 
judicial functioning in India. The Mayor's Courts administered English law, which was assumed 
to be the lex loci ('law of the place') of the settlement. The inhabitants of the settlement 
were governed by the English law, irrespective of their nationality. English law did not extend 
outside the settlements, and there the Indians were subject to their own laws.  
The Charter of 1726 did not specify the law to be applied by the Mayor's Courts. The Charter 
merely stated that the Court was required to 'give judgment and sentence according to 
justice and right'. However, based on the past practice and in the light of the 1661 Charter, the 
then existing English law, or principles of English Common Law and Equity were applied.  It is 
generally understood that the Charter of 1726 indirectly brought into application the laws of 
England- both Common Law and statute law, into the three British Settlements in India. This 
is one of the distinctive outcomes of the 1726 Charter.
Appeals from the Mayor's Court were made to the Court of Governor and the Council.  The 
Governor and five members of the Council were appointed Justices of Peace and constituted a 
criminal court of Oyer and Terminer (a partial translation of the Anglo-French oyeretterminer 
which literally means 'to hear and determine'). The Court of Governor and Council were 
required to meet four times a year for the trial of all offences, except that of high treason. 
However, a second appeal in cases valued at 1,000 pagodas (see picture below) or more, was 
available to the King-in-council in England.
1. Establishment of Mayor's Courts
140
Source: http://www.chennaimuseum.org/draft/gallery/04/01/coin8.htm
Figure – 1: Pagodas in Circulation during the Rule of the British East India Company
The Mayor's Courts established under the Charter of 1726 had severe limitations. There was no 
clarity regarding the applicable law, although the Company made considerable efforts to 
apply the English Law. The jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court over natives was relatively 
uncertain.  In several instances, the Mayor's Court annoyed the natives by applying the 
principles of English Law, completely disregarding their personal laws and customs.
In 1746, the French occupied Madras, after which the functioning of the Mayor's Court was 
suspended in that City. However, the French surrendered Madras to the British in 1749 after 
the conclusion of the peace treaty of Aix-La Chappelle. Using this opportunity, the Company 
requested the King to remove some difficulties related to the 1726 Charter. King George II 
issued another Charter on 8 January 1753, which by and large left the 1726 Charter intact.
By virtue of the 1753 Charter, the Mayor Courts were re-established in the three settlements 
with the same jurisdictions and powers as in the Charter of 1726. To avoid disputes between 
the Governor and Council, the Charter brought the Mayor's Court under the control of the 
Governor and the Council. The Mayor, instead of being selected by the Aldermen was to be 
selected by the Governor and Council. Furthermore, suits and other actions by natives were 
expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court unless both parties had 
submitted them to their determination. The jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court was restricted 
to suits of the value of over five (5) pagodas.
It is notable that Courts such as the Mayor's Courts were established for deciding mainly the 
disputes of the British natives or other foreigners. Therefore, in all the three settlements, 
different types of courts existed to decide the cases of the natives.  In Madras, the Choultry 
courts existed to decide cases up to the value of 20 pagodas. In other words, Choultry courts 
heard, by and large, petty cases and continued up to the year 1800. In Calcutta, the natives 
were subject to the Zamindars' courts. The East India Company as the Zamindar, administered 
these courts. Zamindars' courts decided civil matters, viz, issues involving land, property and 
personal wrongs. It is also reported that the Zamindar's Courts and the Mayor's Court had 
disputes relating to jurisdiction on certain civil matters. Justices of Peace were appointed 
141
in Calcutta to decide criminal matters. However, in Bombay no separate courts were 
established to decide disputes among the natives. The reason was that the Company claimed 
complete sovereignty over the island and did not want to treat the natives differently. 
Judicial functions of the East India Company expanded substantially after its victory in the 
Battle of Plassey (1757). The battle established the Company rule in Bengal, which expanded 
over much of India for the next hundred years. After this battle, the real authority of the 
Nawabs of Bengal passed on to the British. In the year 1765, Robert Clive secured in 
perpetuity for the East India Company, the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa from the Mughal 
Emperor Shah Alam, who was still considered to be the Ruler of the Country, against a 
payment of Rs. 26 lakhs. By this grant, the Company claimed to have become the virtual 
sovereign and master of this territory. At that time, the Nawab, who was the Subedar of 
Bengal, represented the Mughal Emperor. While exercising his authority, the Nawab 
performed two main functions: (i) Diwani, i.e. collection of revenue and civil justice, and 
(ii) the Nizamat, i.e. the military power and criminal justice. The East India Company 
obtained Diwanirights from the Mughal Emperor and the Nawab gave it Nizamat work. 
However, the administration of criminal justice was left with the Nawab, who was responsible 
for maintaining law and order. 
Despite its success in Bengal, the East India Company was debt-ridden at that time and had to 
pay significant sums of money to the British Government to maintain monopoly rights in India. 
The affairs of the company were poorly managed and the natives were unhappy. Even the Tea 
Act of 1773, which triggered the American War of Independence, was designed to rescue the 
near bankrupt company and to generate money from the colonies. In 1773, Lord North, the 
then Prime Minister of England, decided to introduce some form of legal government to 
manage the Indian possessions of the East India Company.      
As the East India Company acquired formal political power over substantial areas in eastern 
India, the British Parliament grew more concerned about the need to regulate its activities. In 
1773, the British Parliament passed the Regulating Act (13 Geo, III Ch.63).  The Regulating Act 
of 1773 made some important changes in the structure of the Company, and appointed a 
Governor General and four councilors at Fort William in Calcutta. The Regulating Act of 1773 
is widely considered as the first attempt by the British Parliament to construct a regular 
government for India and to intervene in the control of the Company's administration. The 
Regulating Act of 1773 also superseded the provisions of the 1753 Charter. 
The Regulating Act of 1773 was the first attempt at creating a separate and somewhat 
independent judicial organ in India, under the direct control of the King. The Chief Justice 
and other puisne (junior) judges were appointed by the King. Section 13 of the Regulating Act 
empowered the Crown to establish by Charter, a Supreme Court of Judicature at fort William 
2. Regulating Act of 1773
142
in Calcutta.  On 26 March 1774, Letters Patent was issued to establish the Supreme Court of 
Judicature. The Supreme Court was to consist of a Chief Justice and three puisnejudges being 
barristers of not less than five (5) years of standing to be appointed by His Majesty. Sir Elijah 
Impey, a distinguished English Barrister, was appointed as the first Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court of Calcutta,a post he held until 1787. The Supreme Court  was set by 'Letters 
Patent'. Clause XVIII of the first Charter ordained that 'the Supreme Court should be a court of 
equity, and shall and may have the full power and authority to administer justice, in a 
summary manner, as nearly as may be, according to the rules and proceedings of our High 
Court of Chancery in Great Britain'. In other words, the power to administer justice and 
equity,(which was an important feature of the Crown Courts in Britain) was also passed onto 
the Supreme Court and to subsequent Charter High Courts. The legacy of this practice 
continues to have influence in India at least in areas of Hindu law.
The Supreme Court, under the Regulating Act of 1773, was a court of record and had the 
power and authority similar to that of the King's Bench in England. The Supreme Court of 
Calcutta had jurisdiction over civil, criminal, admiralty and ecclesiastical (laws governing the 
affairs of the Christian Church) matters. It had the power to issue writs such as mandamus and 
certiorari, similar to the jurisdiction of the present day High Courts and Supreme Court. It 
also had the power of 'Oyer and Terminer' i.e. the power to try offences and imprisonment. 
The Court also had to frame separate rules of practice and procedure for governing its 
functioning. The Supreme Court had jurisdiction over all British subjects and those residing in 
Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and had the power to decide all complaints regarding crime, 
misdemeanors or oppressions.  Appeals from this court were made to the King-in-Council in 
England. 
The Charter of 1774, in pursuance of the Regulating Act, establishing the Supreme Court in 
Bengal, did not delineate the bounds of its jurisdiction. This omission led to a sharp conflict of 
opinion about the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Not infrequently, the Supreme Court, 
without drawing any light from the Regulating Act, overstepped the limits of its jurisdiction, 
and thus commenced in Bengal, an era of confusion, described by Macaulay in his essay as a 
'reign of terror'. Edmund Burke notes, “… [no] rule was laid down either in the Act or the 
Charter by which the Court was to judge. No description of offenders or species of 
delinquency was properly ascertained according to the nature of the place or the prevalent 
mode of abuse.” The power and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in matters relating to 
natives was particularly controversial.  The Act of Settlement of 1781 partly resolved these 
issues. Its effect was to take away the application of the English law to Hindus and 
Mohammedans in the matter of contracts and other matters enumerated in the statutes, and 
to provide that they were to be governed in these matters by their own laws and usages.