Author: Kunal Kumar, Soa National Institute of Law
Introduction
In India, justice is regarded as a human manner of articulating an omnipresent law of nature. If humans always obeyed nature, their actions would automatically be just. Humans feel justice in three primary forms: as moral justice (good and bad), social justice (equity in society), and legal justice (through law).
Ever since the Vedic times, Indian culture has been one to uphold justice and what is right. With changing times and increasing social awareness, Hindu society also progressed and became civilized. Hindu Law, compiled in the Smritis, became more systematized and elaborate. It provided laws for both the people and the king to abide by.
In Medieval India, the court was dominated by Islamic law in civil as well as criminal cases. The Mughals and Sultans administered justice according to rules framed by the Emperor with the assistance of court officials.
But only with the coming of the British did India have a real justice system. It began to develop modern courts in 1639 in British-held cities of Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta.
Three Stages of Justice Administration in Madras Presidency
Stage- | (1639-1665)
The early Indian judicial system was primarily for the English in the three presidencies. However, with increasing Indians settling in these regions, the system needed to be altered. In 1639, Francis Day of the East India Company purchased land from a Hindu king and founded Madraspatnam, subsequently referred to as Fort St. George or White Town, where the Company took care of legal affairs for the English. In time, the East India Company was forced to reorganize the judicial system in order to accommodate the increasing Indian population in Madraspatnam.
Council and Agent Court
Little is known regarding the judicial system during the initial years of the Madras settlement. The Agent and his Council administered Justice, who conducted the affairs of White Town. They operated under Surat, India’s single Presidency at that time. Their judicial authority was not clear, so they did not deal with serious criminal cases and instead referred them to England for guidance, which led to lengthy delays in justice. There is one known case during that period when two Englishmen were punished for sedition. The settlement initially specialized in trade, so legal problems were not many. However, over time administrative work was more in abundance.
The Agent and Council handled criminal and civil cases, but they were merchants and were not trained in law. Therefore, they decided the cases mostly on their general knowledge, conscience, and general sense, which led to justice being slow and ineffective at times.
Choultry court
In Black Town, where foreigners resided, a native judicial officer named an “Adhikari” was appointed. The Adhikari, who was always a native, dealt with petty cases and not serious crimes such as murder or intricate civil matters. Appeals from such petty cases were forwarded to the superior authority — the Agent and Council, which possessed appellate jurisdiction.
At times, Adhikaris also abused their authority to favor themselves. Kanappa is a prime example; he was dismissed from duty as he abused his power. An Englishman later took his place at the Choultry Court.
Charter Act of 1661
This significant charter empowered the Governor and Council to judge all persons under their authority, including natives, in both civil and criminal cases, and to apply English law. This laid the groundwork for a more formalized system.
According to the Charter of 1661, the East India Company was authorized to appoint a Governor and Council to deal with civil and criminal cases. English law was still applied even to Indian cases in the Company’s settlements. The legal powers authorized under the Charter were exerc affordable only by the Governor and Council. Important cases concerning Englishmen were usually referred to England, with resulting delays.
The Governor and Council did not work efficiently, particularly in criminal cases. They lacked confidence in legal procedure and frequently dodged taking decisions until they had taken advice from Company authorities in London. This led to substantial delays — for instance, in 1678, one Englishman accused of murder spent 31 months in prison without trial. Another incident was that of a Portuguese man who was detained for killing his servant as the Company and the Council quarreled about trying him.
These events illustrate how inept and sluggish the justice system was. Even though the Company possessed sufficient legal authority, they were reluctant and did not have the necessary will to exercise it effectively. It resulted in escalating complaints and rendered judicial reform an urgent necessity.
Stage – || ( 1665 to 1683)
The 1661 Charter had conferred judicial powers to the Governor and Council, but it was not employed in Madras immediately, and therefore the old system remained in force for a period of time. A murder case, in 1665, against Mrs. Ascentia Dawes, who was charged with murdering her slave girl, compelled a shift. The Agent and Council in Madras, as always, doubted their own powers and referred the case to the Company in England.
The Company reacted by at last activating the Charter of 1661 in Madras. In order to do so, they upgraded the Agent to Governor, as only a Governor could exercise the authority granted under the Charter.
This resulted in two major changes:
Judicial power now extended to all people living in the settlement and not merely Englishmen.
Madras became a Presidency rather than merely an Agency.
Mrs. Dawes was then tried in the first jury trial of Madras, consisting of a petty jury of 6 Englishmen and 6 Portuguese and a grand jury as well. This was the start of a more formal court system in Madras.
High court of Judicature (1665-1678)
The Governor and Council were gradually formalized into a High Court of Judicature in the year 1665.
Important facts regarding this court:
It consisted of 12 judicial officers.
They conducted court twice a week to try both civil and criminal cases.
It also dealt with appeals against Choultry Courts.
The court tried cases between individuals from both White Town and Black Town.
Trials were carried out with assistance from a jury.
All the decisions were taken on the basis of English Law.
This was the start of a more systematic and formal legal system in Madras.
Reconstituted Choultry Court
By then the Choultry Court system of the past was reformed, and three English Presiding Officers replaced the earlier Adhikaris to settle cases. Such officers presided twice a week and were authorized to hear only civil cases, up to the limit of money of 50 pagodas.
Appeal to this court was made to the Governor and Council, who served as the appellate tribunal. This system continued to function up to the year 1704.
Stage-||| (1683-1726)
Two significant courts were established during this time. In 1686, the Admiralty Court was instituted under the Charter of 1683, with a Judge Advocate as its head, to address naval and shipping matters. Subsequently, in 1687, the Mayor’s Court was instituted by the East India Company through the Charter of 1687, to address civil and petty criminal cases in the town.
Admiralty court (1665)
In the late 1600s, there was a monopoly in Asia, Africa, and America by the East India Company. British merchants desiring to trade needed a permit from the Company. Unauthorized merchants (interlopers) broke this monopoly, leading to financial losses to the Company. Piracy on the high seas was also a problem. To deal with these problems, King Charles II issued a Charter in 1683 permitting the Company to establish Admiralty Courts. They were empowered to adjudicate maritime and mercantile cases, such as piracy and unlicensed trade within the Company’s sphere. The court was to consist of a judge qualified in civil law and two merchants appointed by the Company.
The Charter permitted the court to observe rules of equity, fairness, and merchant practices in lieu of English common law. This is due to the fact that Admiralty and trade laws had more roots in Roman (civil) law, which was international, compared to English common law.
The court head went by the title Judge Advocate. Another similar Charter reaffirming these powers was issued by King James-II in 1686.
Mayor’s Court (1687)
According to the Charter of 1687, the East India Company established the Mayor’s Court in Madras that fell within the Madras Corporation on 29th September 1688. Appointments to the post of Mayor could be made only from Englishmen. The Aldermen and Burgesses were entitled to depose the Mayor for neglect of duty.
Aldermen served as long as they remained in Madras, which generally meant for life, but they could also be displaced by the Mayor and Burgesses if they prove incompetent.
The Mayor’s Court was headed by a Mayor, assisted by 12 Aldermen and over sixty Burgesses.
The Mayor served a one-year term and was elected annually by the Aldermen.
The first Mayor and Aldermen was appointed under the Charter of 1687.
The Company appointed the Mayor and three English Aldermen, the rest were local natives.
The Mayor’s Court handled all criminal cases with judges and had the authority to impose fines and imprisonment.
For the first time, the Judge Advocate of the Admiralty Court was appointed as the Recorder of the Mayor’s Court.
The number of Burgesses was limited to a maximum of 120, and they were appointed by the Mayor and Aldermen.
Appeals from the Mayor’s Court were heard and decided by the Admiralty Court.
Conclusion
Administration of justice in Madras prior to 1726 passed through three important phases. At the first phase, justice was ad hoc and governed by the Governor and Company servants with no established laws. During the second phase, petty cases amongst natives were managed by local Adhikaris under customary laws. The third phase witnessed the setting up of the Court of Judicature in 1686 with civil and criminal jurisdiction but generally for Europeans. There was a dual system of dividing justice between natives and the English. Such initial attempts, though structured and limited in nature, formed the basis for subsequent judicial reforms such as the Mayor’s Court in 1726.
FAQS
Q: Who dispensed justice in Madras in the early Company days?
A: Justice was dispensed by the Governor and his Council, who resolved disputes between Europeans informally on the basis of Company rules and elementary canons of justice.
Q: What was the Choultry Court and who presided there?
A: The Choultry Court was a native court for minor cases, headed by Adhikaris, who were Indian functionaries administering traditional Hindu or Muslim laws.
Q: What was the importance of the Court of Judicature (1686)?
A: It was a move in the direction of formal legal organization with civil and criminal jurisdiction, largely for Europeans, and comprised the Governor, top officials, and a legal Recorder.
Q: How was justice differentiated for natives and Europeans in Madras prior to 1726?
A: There was a dual system: Europeans were tried according to English procedure by Company officials, and natives were tried by local courts such as the Choultry, according to traditional custom.
Q: Why was the Madras justice system inadequate prior to 1726?
It did not have codified laws, trained judges, and standardized procedures, which resulted in arbitrary judgments and unequal justice, necessitating reforms such as the Mayor’s Court.
