History II Week 2

The East India Company

• Established under a Charter granted by the Queen Elizabeth in 1600 entitled
“the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East
Indies.”
• Initially granted for 15 years, but was renewable for another 15 years.
• The Company was managed by Court of Directors.
Powers of E. India Company
• The Court could make any reasonable laws, ordinances, orders etc. for the
good government of company and also provide for penalties for their
violation.
• The only condition is that these laws must be reasonable and not contrary to
laws and customs of England.
• How is it significant for the Indian legal history?
Ilbert: Government of India
• Ilbert has called these powers of the Company “the germ out of which the
Anglo-Indian codes were ultimately developed.
• A number of subsequent Charters in 1609, 1661, 1668 etc. preserved these
powers of the Company. Under 1698 Charter, a Second East India company
was incorporated. The two companies were united into one in 1709 as “the
East India company”.
• Royal Commissions in 1601, 1615
• The Crown authorised C-in-C of each voyage to punish for serious offences;
also gave a general power to the Company to issue such commissions to its
Captains.
• In capital offences of murder and mutiny, the trial should be by a jury of 12
servants of the Company.
Significance of Charter of 1661 issued by Charles II
• Company was empowered to appoint a Governor and Council at its factories.
• They were authorised to judge all persons belonging to or living under the
Company “in all cases, whether civil or criminal”, according to the laws of
England and to execute judgment accordingly.
• Thus the Charter of 1661 Authorised the Company to try and punish all
persons living under it, including the Indians.
• Opened the doors for the introduction and application of English law in
India.
• Conferred judicial powers on the executive viz. the Governor and Council.

Turning point in the legal history of India

• The Mughal Emperor granted the right of self-government to the English. It
proved to a turning point in the legal history of India.. A little mistake in the
form of commercial concession by Jehangir in 1612 cost his successors the
Indian Empire….the same mistake was committed in 1639 by Raja of
Chandragiri in the South and in 1698 by Prince Azim Us-shan in the East.
• Jehangir’s firman [order] granting right of self-government to the English
• He granted certain facilities to the English people to carry on their activities in
Surat settlement; to live according to the laws, religion and customs of
England and to be judged by their own laws in their disputes.
• But a dispute arising between an Indian and English was to be decided by the
local Indian courts.
• Mughal Governor or Kazi of the relevant place will protect the English people
from all sorts of oppression and injury.

Legal vaccum –lacuna and weakness in administration which proved fatal

• The Mughals had an elaborate governmental machinery and had evolved civil
and criminal laws to govern their subjects and no specific law to govern
foreigners. They did not have any interest in making foreigners amenable to
their laws, except for police and revenue matters, or in respect of disputes
arising between the Indian subjects and foreigners.
• A legal vaccum was created regarding inter se affairs of foreigners in these
settlements, in which grew legal and political authority of foreign
governments which increased with the decline of the Mughal Empire and
extended to other Indian territories as they came under their influence and
jurisdiction.
English East India Company: Devt. Of authority under Charters
• 1600 Queen Elizabeth I granted a Charter to the Company which
incorporated the London East India Company “to trade into and from the East
 Indies, in the countries and parts of Asia and Africa…for a period of fifteen
years….”. It also granted legislative power to the Company “to make bye-laws,
ordinances, etc. for the good government of the Company and its servants
and to punish offences against them by fine or imprisonment according to
laws, statutes and customs of the realm”.
• Legislative power was subjected to 2 conditions: it should not contravene the
English law and it should be reasonable.
• 1609 Charter – continued the Company’s privileges in perpetuity.
• 1661 Charter: Company regained its prosperity and it changed its character
from a purely trading concern into a territorial power. For the first time the
Laws of England were made applicable in the territory of India. These powers
gradually started developing into a government for the locality. The Governor
and Council were authorised to judge all persons belonging to the Company
or living under them in settlements in all civil and criminal causes according
to the laws of England to execute judgments in respective settlements.
• Thus the Charter provided for the application of English law and empowered
the Governor and Council to exercise control over both the Judiciary and the
Executive.
• Subsequent Charters: Transition from a trading body to a territorial power
• Charter of 1668 – transfer of Bombay to E.India company on an annual rent
of 10 pounds.
• 1683 Charter – Company was authorised to establish Admiralty Courts.
Judges of these courts were to decide matters according to equity, good
conscience, laws and customs of merchants.
• 1707 – death of Emperor Aurangazeb; the Mughal Empire began to
degenerate.
• The Company derived its power and authority from 2 different sources – the
Crown and the Parliament in England on the one hand and the Mughal
Emperor and other native rulers in India on the other. At the 3 settlements of
Bombay, Madras and Calcutta the Company had to deal with different local
political powers.

• Wherever Englishmen settled in India, they sought to administer justice to

themselves according to the English law and this proved to be very important
 single factor which exerted a profound effect on the growth and
development of the Indian legal system.
Madras settlement and Administration of Justice from 1639 to 1726
• Though the Raja granted right to administer justice to the English people,
they thought it better to allow old traditional courts to continue to govern
natives.
• Thus, a Choultry Court presided by the village headman known as “Adigar” or
a Governor of the Town as he was called.
• 2 separate bodies administering justice between 1639-1661 in Madras. The
Agent and Council were acting as supreme judicial authority for English
people residing in Fort St. George [White Town] and native people residing in
so-called Black Town locality, were under the jurisdiction of the Choultry
Court.
• In serious cases, reference was made to the Raja, who always laid emphasis
on the fact that the accused must be punished according to the provisions of
English law. No fixed procedure was laid down to decide cases and each case
was decided in its own way by the Court.
• First phase [1639-1678]
• The trial of Dawes who killed a native slave girl exposed the ignorance of the
Court.
• Machinery to administer justice was at a rudimentary stage. Regular and
systematic administration of justice was absent.
• Dr. M.P. Jain, [the court of President and Council] inefficient as it was a very
hesitating sort of court not sure of its power, while the latter [Choultry Court]
could decide only petty cases”.

Administration of justice in Madras: second phase 1678-1685

• The Court of Governor and Council was designated as the High Court of
Judicature. It was authorised to hear appeals from the Choultry Court. Thus,
a judicial system based on a hierarchy of Courts with well-defined jurisdiction
came into existence in Madras.
• In 1680, the Governor of Madras made a Declaration by which the English
language was recognised as the only official language.
• Thus the English language was firmly planted as Court language in Madras
and played an important role in moulding the local population of Madras in
 favour of political leadership controlled by the English people employed by
the Company.
Administration of justice in Madras: second phase 1678-1685
• During the second phase also, the working of the Court was irregular and
inefficient.
• Trial of Gilbert and De Lima
• Prisoners were rotting in prison without trial and much time was lost in
consultations and demand from the Company for more power.
• It was not the lack of power but hesitation and apathy to use it that was
responsible for the sorry state of affairs.
• Administration of justice in Madras:
Third phase 1683-1726
• 1683 and 1686 Charters: Courts of Admiralty with a wide jurisdiction in all
Civil, Criminal, Maritime and Mercantile cases.
• In particular, it was aimed to try all traders committing various crimes on the
high seas. While administering justice, that Court will be guided by the laws
and customs of merchants as well as the rules of equity and good conscience.

Administration of justice in Madras: Third phase 1683-1726

• Company issued 1687 Charter which authorised it to create a Corporation of
Madras and establish a Mayor’s Court as a part of it empowered to carry out
judicial functions.
• The Court did not follow any definite procedure. Proceedings were conducted
in a summary way according to justice, equity and good conscience and the
laws framed by the Company. Its decisions were on ad hoc basis and lacked
uniformity. It imposed death sentences in several cases against the natives.
• The Court had no reputation for impartiality or incorruptability.
• Mayor’s Court was subservient to the Executive following its power of
removal of Mayor and Alderman by the Executive.
• Drawbacks of legal system in Madras
• Absence of proper judicial system
• Uncertainty of laws: The Courts and people did not know the law applicable
to them and their disputes
• Severe punishments [based on deterrence]
• Lack of facilities in the Jails
• Unfair trial [principles of natural justice and presumption of innocence not
observed]

• Standard of justice
• No standard or criteria for imposing penalties or methods of execution.
Conditions of imprisonment were horrible. Cases were decided and the
quantum of punishment which had absolutely no relation to the gravity of
the offence was being imposed according to whims and fancies and
prejudices of the judges. The modes of punishment were generally inhuman
and barbarous and were being used against those who were caught to deter
others.

Administration of justice in Bombay

• 1668 Charter: King Charles II of England who got Bombay Island as dowry
transferred its control to E. India Company and also authorised it to exercise
legislative and judicial authority. This Charter marks the transition of the
Company from a trading association to a territorial sovereign invested with
powers of civil and military government.
• Laws should be consonant to reason and not contrary to the laws of England.
The system of courts and procedure was to be similar to that established and
used in England.
• Judicial reforms of 1670 in Bombay
• A Court of Judicature in each Division to try all criminal cases
• Appeals from that court to the Court of Deputy Governor and Council
• Further appeals to the President and Council at Surat was discouraged except
in rare cases.
• Defects: The Judges had no knowledge of even elementary principles of law;
they were mere traders. The judicial and executive powers were exercised by
same persons which led to abuse of power.

New Judicial Plan of 1672 in Bombay

• The Portuguese laws and customs were abolished. It declared introduction of
English law into India. The judicial machinery was reorganised. A new central
 court known as the Court of Judicature was established to exercise its
jurisdiction over all civil, criminal and testamentary cases.
• Governor Aungier enunciated the principles which subsequently set the
pattern for the administration of justice not only in Bombay but all over the
country. He emphasized that all the inhabitants of the island, irrespective of
caste or creed had an equal title and right to justice. Thus he laid special
emphasis on the principles of independence, impartiality and equality for the
future guidance of judiciary.
• Justices of Peace were appointed to administer criminal justice.
• Courts of Consicence were created to decide petty civil cases. No court fee
was charged and it became famous as “Poorman’s court”.
• Admiralty court established in Bombay in 1684 to try maritime cases of all
kinds
• Chief weakness of the Court of Judicature lay in the fact that the Judge was
dependent on the goodwill of the Council.

Administration of justice in Bombay

• 1690-1718: dark period in Bombay’s legal History; Aurangzeb’s admiral, Siddi
Yakub’s invasion; set-back to judicial administration following non-
appointment of Judges.
• Revival and inauguration of an improved Court of Judicature in 1718. It was
given wide powers and exercised jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases
according to law, equity and good conscience.
• According to Jusice Rama Jois, “no substantive law to be enforced and no
procedural law to be followed. The whole system was capricious and
arbitrary”. The Court even sanctioned torture to extract confession and extort
evidence. E.g. Rama Kamti case – case of dark justice in Bombay.
• This case shows the poor state of judicial and executive affairs. Fawcett: “the
Court though its administration of justice was rough and ready and though it
fell short of the ideals that attended its establishment in Aungier’s time
clearly served a useful purpose during the ten years of its renewed existence
1718-28.

Administration of justice in Calcutta

• 1698: Prince Azim-Ush-Shan, Subedar of Bengal and grandson of Aurangazeb,
granted Zamindari rights of 3 villages – Calcutta, Sutanati and Govindpur – to
the English company.
• This proved a historical event as the grant of Zamindari rights empowered a
foreign company to exercise all those powers which the native Zamindars
were authorised to have under the Mughal administrative and judicial
system.

• The Company took full advantage of the system and appointed a Collector to
control the administration of all the 3 villages.
• The Collector began regularly to hold Zamindari court for both civil and
criminal cases.
• In 1699, the status of Calcutta was raised to that of a Presidency and its
Governor and Council were entrusted with all the necessary administrative
and judicial powers. The Company thus secured for itself a legal and
constitutional status which made it as good as Zamindar exercising full rights
of Zamindari.
• The Company officers filled power vaccum by asserting themselves and
snatching more powers from the feeble and corrupt adminstrators.
• Dr. M.P. Jain, “Within the precincts of Zamindari, the English “sought
confirmation of death sentences from the Governor and Council without
making any reference to the Nawab, and appeals from the Collector’s Court
in all cases went to the Governor and Council and not to the Nawab’s
Courts… Thus from the very outset the Company sought to act as a territorial
soverign vis-à-vis Calcutta and tried to exclude any semblance of the Nawab’s
authority from the governance and administration of Calcutta even though
the Company at the time was merely a Zamindar and nothing more.”

Early Mayor’s Court at Madras

• The Company issued a Charter in 1687 which provided for the creation of a
Mayor’s Court at Fort St. George in Madras. It was to be a part of the
Corporation of Madras established in 1688.
• Why did it resort to its own Charter than King’s Charter?
• Mayor, 12 Aldermen and 60 or more Burgeses
• One Mayor and two Aldermen formed the quorum of the Mayor’s Court.
• It was Court of Record for the town of Madras. It exercised its jurisdiction in
civil and criminal cases
• In civil cases where the value was > 3 pagodas i.e Rs. 9 and in criminal cases
where the accused was given death sentence, appeals from the decisions of
the Mayor’s Court were allowed to go to the Admiralty Court at Madras.
• Provision for the appointment of Recorder

Justice machinery in Madras

• 4 Courts
• Court of Admiralty presided over by the Judge-Advocate
• Mayor’s Court presided over by the Mayor
• For small causes of < 2 pagodas i.e Rs. 6, two Aldermen presided over the
Choultry Court
• The Court of the President or Governor-in-Council to hear appeals from the
decisions of the Admiralty Court and the Mayor’s Court.
• Working of early Mayor’s Court at Madras
• Cases were decided on the basis of justice and good conscience and not on
any fixed legal rules of law.
• Process slow and result uncertain.
• Mayor’s notions of justice not based on principles of law and equity
• Non-professional persons prejudices, whims lack of uniformity
and consistency in decisions

Drawbacks
• The judicial system at Calcutta and Bombay differed greatly.
• State of admn. Of justice was at its lowest ebb.
• Maintenance of law and order amongst even Englishmen – a serious concern
• Decisions of the Courts in India were not recognized by the Courts in England
for causes which arose in India and settled by the Indian Courts.
Growing discontent
• Political and commercial activities of the Company were increasing day by
day and it wished to avoid litigation.
• Fawcett: First Century of British Justice in India: Case of Mr. Woolaston who
brought several suits against the Company after the death of his son in India
and the Courts in England awarded him 300 pounds as damages.

• After long experience, the Company realised the necessity of properly

constituted Courts in all the 3 presidency towns having not only civil and
testamentary jurisdiction but also under such authority as was recognised by
all the Courts in England.
• Directors of Company presented a petition to George I about the great need
for speedy and effective administration of justice

Main Provisions of Charter of 1726

• Establishment of a Corporation in Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. [1 Mayor + 9
Aldermen]
• Mayor’s Court in each presidency town [1+9];
• Procedure of the Mayor’s Court laid down. Similar to that adopted in
England. Sheriff to serve as an Officer of the Court.
• Right of Appeal
• Justices of Peace
• Legislation
Establishment of Corporations
• The Governor-in-Council was entrusted with the power to make by-laws,
rules, ordinances to regulate the working of the Corporations and for the
better admn. of the inhabitants of the settlements after obtaining prior
approval.
• 1726 Charter created for the first time a subordinate legislative authority in
each of the presidency towns of India.

Right of Appeal
• Appeal allowed to the Governor-in-Council from the decision of the Mayor’s
Court within 14 days of the Judgment.
• Decision of Governor-in-Council final in all cases involving a sum of < 100
pagodas
• > 1000 pagodas, a further appeal was allowed to be filed in the King-in-
Council [HM Privy Council] from the decision of Governor-in-Council
• The Charter introduced a new system of first and second appeals, making the
King of England the ultimate fountain of justice for litigants in India.
Justices of Peace
• The Charter provided that in each presidency town, the Governor and five
senior members of the Council will have criminal jurisdiction and would be
Justices of the Peace. They were empowered to arrest and punish persons for
pretty criminal cases.
• Same powers as similar courts in England. Charter says Procedure, manner
and form to be adopted by these Courts would be English pattern.

• The Charter of 1726 made the beginning of importing English ideas, technical
forms and procedure of criminal justice into India.
• Charter empowered the Governor and the Council of each Presidency town
to make by-laws, rules and ordinances and to prescribe punishments for its
breach which should not be contrary to English law but agreeable to reason.
Significance of Charter of 1726
• Important landmark in the legal history
• Abolition of the Court of Admiralty at Madras and enlargement of the powers
of Mayor’s court.
• By establishing Mayor’s Court in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras, Charter
introduced a uniform judicial machinery for justice in India.
• The Civil and criminal courts established under charter derived their
authority from the King [Royal Courts]
• Fact that the Courts in India derived their authority from the King, gave rise
to introduction of a new system of appeals from Indian Courts to the Privy
Council in England.
• The common allegiance to the King of England in the field of judicial set-up
paved the way for importing English ideas of law and justice into India.
• It was through the Privy Council that the principles of English law were
gradually applied in deciding Indian cases wherever Indian law was silent or
defective according to British Judges.
• Deep-rooted English tradition of showing respect to the decisions of the
highest judiciary was also adopted in India.
• With the adoption of the doctrine of precedent in India, the principles of
English law greatly influenced Indian law and legal institutions.
• The Charter of 1726 itself played an important role in introducing English
Common and Statute law in India.
• Fawcett: “…it meant the authoritative introduction of English law in the
presidency towns and foreshadowed the parliamentary interference that first
took shape in the Regulating Act of 1773”, which laid the foundations of
codification of the Indian law.
• Dr. MP Jain, “thus was established a bridge between the English and the
Indian Legal systems”, turning a “new leaf” in the evolution of judicial
institutions.
• Due to its great significance, characterized as the “Judicial Charter”.

Distinction between the Madras Charter of 1687 and the Charter of 1726
• Assessment of working of Mayor’s Courts from 1726-1753
• Charter was not quite clear in its language; created many difficulties for
native Indians
• For the first time, the Mayor’s Court administered English law in India. It
completely ignored the Indian customs and traditions and was hardly suitable
to Indian conditions in those days.
• As there was no specific mention, the Court exercised its jurisdiction even in
cases where both parties were native Indians dissatisfaction and unrest
• Assessment of working of Mayor’s Courts from 1726-1753
• The Mayor and Aldermen who presided over the Mayor’s Court were either
senior servants of the Company or dependent on Company for their stay in
India. No regular legal training nor any judicial experience.
• The Mayor’s Court was expected to work independently but its relationship
with the executive, Governor-in-Council was not stated clearly. Hatred,
jealousy and strained relations between executive and judiciary .
• Conflict about jurisdiction:
Shimpy’s case [Bombay].
• As early as 1730, Governor Cowan and the Mayor’s Court at Bombay came
into conflict on the Court’s jurisdiction over natives in matters concerning
their caste and religion.
• Court ordered the relatives to hand over the boy to his mother.
• Bombay Council held that Mayor’s Court was not authorized to exercise its
jurisdiction over “causes of religious nature or dispute concerning caste
among natives” and issued a warning to the Court.
• Conflict about jurisdiction: Arab Merchant Case1730
• An Arab merchant sued a person for recovery of the value of his pearls. He
said that the defendant extorted the pearls from him while he was rescued
from a burning boat near Gujarat coast. The Governor-in-council suggested
that the suit was invalid as the defendant was tried for piracy earlier on and
was acquitted. But the Mayor’s Court paid no attention and decreed the suit
in favour of the merchant. On appeal before the Governor-in-council, the
decision was reversed by the casting vote of Governor Cowan. Mayor’s Court
challenged the legality of reversal order.
• Conflict about jurisdiction: Madras
• The Mayor’s Court expressed its indignation when the Corporation tried to
utilize money collected by the Court as fines for the purpose of public works.
The Court always insisted on its independent authority and original
jurisdiction in administering justice and made it clear that the Governor and
the Council had no power to dictate or interfere in its working.
• Conflict about jurisdiction: Madras Torriano Case
• In a case where Torriano, Secretary to the Government, filed a civil suit
against Naish, the Mayor, for recovery of bet amount, the Mayor’s Court held
that the Mayor was immune from legal action in the court.
• Relations between Governor and Mayor strained due to personal rivalry,
jealousy and hatred.
• When Naish was reelected as Mayor, Governor refused to allow him to take
oath of office.
• Sanku Rama Case
• Pagoda Oath case
• The Mayor’s Court also came into conflict with local inhabitants of Madras. It
insisted that the Hindu witnesses must take “Pagoda” oath instead of Geeta
oath. A Gujarati merchant was fined by the court for refusing to take this
oath. When the matter came before the Governor-in-Council, they remitted
the fine.
• Later two Hindus who were arrested on this count were released on parole
by Governor.
• Even in Calcutta, similar conflicts arose between Mayor and Governor-in-
council.
• Response of the Court of Directors of the Company to a petition by people
• Regarding conflicts and litigation between the natives in which the King’s
subjects were not involved, this may and should be decided among
themselves according to their own customs or by justices or referees to be
appointed by themselves.. But if they request and choose them to be decided
by English laws, those and those only must be pursued according to the
Charter and this likewise must be the case when differences happen between
the natives and subjects of England where either party is obstinate and
determined to go to law.

Appraisal of Mayor’s Courts

• Kaye, “Justice gained little by establishment of Mayor’s Court.”
• Fawcett, “It resulted in the distinct progress in the administration of justice
according to principles and practice of the English Courts of law.”
• Dr. MP Jain, The Company soon lost its patience as it could no longer brook
strife between the judiciary and the executive. In 1753, it took steps to
weaken the judiciary. This was unfortunate but easy comparatively.”
• Political changes in Madras Sept. 1746 to Aug. 1749
• French captured Madras and brought it under the temporary rule of
Pondicherry. It gave a death blow to the Mayor’s Court at Madras.
• After recapture by British in 1749, it was decided to revive the Mayor’s Court
under a new Charter of 1753 of George II.

Reforms introduced by Charter of 1753

• It excluded the jurisdiction of the Court all suits and actions between natives
only.
• It made Mayor’s Court subordinate to the Government of the Company.
Mayor became the Government’s nominee as a result Mayor’s Court lost its
independence.
• For Hindus, the Charter stated that the oath must be taken in a manner
which is considered most binding on their conscience according to their own
castes.
• Mayor’s Court empowered to hear suits against the Mayor and Aldermen;
against the Company.
• The Charter also created a Court of Request at each Presidency town of
Bombay, Calcutta and Madras to decide civil cases involving a sum not
exceeding 5 Pagodas [Rs. 15] Its chief aim was to give cheap and quick justice
to the poor.

Courts established by Charter 1753

• The Court of Requests to hear civil suits up to 5 pagodas, one for each
presidency town.
• The Mayor’s Court to hear civil suits for more than 5 pagodas, one for each
presidency town.
• The Courts of the President and Council. It was empowered to act as Justices
of the Peace and the Court of Quarter Sessions to hear and decide criminal
cases. It was also empowered to act as civil appellate court.
• The King-in-Council [the Privy Council] as the highest court of appeal.
Criticism of the Charter of 1753
• Executive’s upper hand
• Judges ignorant of law
• Unclear jurisdiction [What about cases arising from beyond presidency town
areas?]
• Expensive appeals [highly expensive to go to London for an appeal]
• Exclusion of Indians [Not appointed to the Bench. Allowed to participate as
jurors in the sessions court. This privilege was also restricted to those who
accepted the Christian religion]
• Executive’s Upper hand
• V.K. Ferminger observed: “The weakness of judicatures of 1726 and 1753
arose from the fact that they tended to be in fact but various branches of the
Company’s executive Government and therefore afforded imperfect means of
resistance to the class interests of the company’s servants at a time when the
Company’s servants were bidding fair to monopolise the trade of the
country.”
• At Calcutta
• House of Commons appointed a Committee of Secrecy in 1772. Apart from
defects in the appointment of Mayor, the court also came into conflict with
the President and Council and with native Zamindar’s Court.
• Following that Committee’s report, the British Parliament passed “the
Regulating Act, 1773.”
• It abolished Mayor’s Court at Calcutta and in its place a Supreme Court was
established in 1774.
• These changes were made at Calcutta only and not at other presidency
towns. It appears that the British Parliament considered it suitable to
introduce reforms on an experimental basis at Calcutta and assess its working
so that if proved successful, the same may be introduced at Bombay and
Madras at a later stage.

At Madras and Bombay

• The Mayor’s Court continued to function somehow or other until 1797. One
major defect was that the judges of the Mayor’s Court were not skilled in law
injustice.
• Work of the Court increased and required professional judges. The Company
abolished the Mayor’s Court at Madras and Bombay and under the Charter of
1798 established the Recorder’s Court. Recorder was an expert in English law.

• The Recorder’s Court at Mumbai consisted of a Mayor, 3 Aldermen and a

Recorder appointed by the Crown. Charter said that Recorder must be a
Barrister of not less than 5 years’ standing. In fact the Recorder was the real
judicial authority to enlighten the court with legal provisions applicable in
each case.
• The Mayor’s Courts functioned nearly for 70 years with its inherent defects of
principle and personnel.
• With all their shortcomings the Mayor’s Courts were much better than the
Courts existing prior to them and they did constitute important links in the
chain of the evolutionary process of the Indian judiciary.
• With their end, also came to an end of the system of entrusting
administration of justice to non-lawyer servants of the Company.
Appraisal of the Mayor’s Court under the Charters of 1726 and 1753
• The Court of Directors never stated clearly that they were interested in
maintaining independence of judiciary. They wanted to safeguard trade and
commerce and justice machinery was mainly to deal with English litigants in
India. Judges of Mayor’s Courts wanted to expand their jurisdiction over
natives.
• How far had justice gained by the creation of Mayor’s Courts?

• William Bolt – Mayors’ Court has become scourge in the hands of the
Governor-in-Council than an instrument of relief to the injured, political
farce….
• Alan Gledhill – popularity of the courts with Indian litigants – efficiency
• Dodwell – make-shift justice
• Primary task of the Mayor’s Court was to administer justice over His
Majesty’s subjects. It was not fulfilled.
• J.W. Kaye’s assessment

• “Justice gained little by the establishment of the Mayor’s Courts…It will also
be in the fitness of things to conclude that howsoever ignorant, incompetent,
inefficient and influenced by the executive were the judges of the Mayor’s
Courts under the Charters of 1726 and 1753, a good beginning was made to
set up a suitable uniform machinery for the administration of justice in India
on the basis of English ideas and pattern.