Establishment of Supreme Court Under the Crown’s Charter of 1774
In pursuance of the power given by the Regulating Act, 1773, the Crown issued a Charter on March 26, 1774, establishing the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta. The Charter settled the various details relating to the Court, and abolished the legal provisions of the Charter of 1753, which meant the supersession of the Mayor’s Court and the Court of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery.
Composition of Supreme Court
According to S. 13 of the Regulating Act, 1773, the Supreme Court was constituted to be a Court of Record. It consisted of a Chief Justice and three Puisne Judges to be appointed by the Crown to act during the pleasure of the Crown. The Charter appointed Sir Elijah Impey as the Chief Justice, and Robert Chambers, S. C. Le Maistre and John Hyde as the three Puisne Judges. They were Barristers of not less than five years standing. All the Judges were declared to be Justices of the Peace and Coroners within Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. In authority and jurisdiction, they were to be in the position of Judges of the King’s Bench in England. The Chief Justice was given a casting vote. Writs, summons, rules, orders and other mandatory process issued by the Court were to run in the Crown’s name.
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
1. Original Jurisdiction in Civil Cases – The Court was authorized to hear, examine, try and determine all civil causes, suits and actions against (i) The Company, (ii) The Mayor and Aldermen of Calcutta, (iii) The Crown’s subjects who were residents within Bengal, Bihar and Orissa or who should have resided there or who should have any debts, effects or estate, real or personal, within the same, (iv) Any person who was employed by, or was directly or indirectly in the service of the Company, or the Mayor and Alderman or any of the Crown’s subjects, and (v) Any inhabitant of India residing in the said Provinces if he entered into an agreement in writing with any of the Crown’s subjects that in case of dispute between them, the matter should be determined in the Supreme Court, provided the cause of action exceeded the sum of Rs. 500.
2. Jurisdiction as a Court of Equity – The Supreme Court was to be a Court of Equity in the English legal sense of the word. It was given full power to administer justice in a summary manner as nearly as might be according to the rules and proceedings of the High Court of Chancery in Great Britain. It could issue Subpoena and other process to compel the appearance and answer upon oath of the opposite party, as well as to compel obedience to the decree and order of the Court in such manner and form and to such effect as the High Chancellor of Great Britain did.
3. Jurisdiction as a Criminal Court – The Supreme Court was to be a Court of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery in and for the town of Calcutta, the factory of For William and subordinate factories. In this capacity its authority was like that of the Justices of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery in England. It had to administer criminal justice in all cases of grave offences and misdemeanours in such manner and form, or as nearly as the conditions and cirucmstances of the place and persons admitted of, as the Courts of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery did in England. The Charter provided for the employment of Grand Jury and Petty Jury, summoned by the Sheriff, composed of the subjects of Great Britain residing in Calcutta.
4. Jurisdiction as an Ecclesiastical Court – The Supreme Court was given ecclesiastical jurisdiction over British subjects residing in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. It was to administer and execute ecclesiastical law as used and exercised in the diocese of London so far as the local circumstances required. The Court might grant probates of wills and testaments of the deceased British subjects and letters of administration in regard to their effects if they died intestate or without appointing executors of their wills.
5. Jurisdiction as an Admiralty Court – The Supreme Court was declared to be a Court of Admiralty for Bengal, Bihar and Orissa to hear and try all cases, civil and maritime, in the same manner as the High Court of Admiralty did in England. It was given power to try, with the help of a Petty Jury of British subjects residents in the town of Calcutta, and punish all treasons, murders, piracies and other crimes maritime, committed on the high-seas, in accordance with the laws and customs of the High Court of Admiralty in England.
6. Jurisdiction as to Supervision Over Inferior Courts – The Court of Requests, as established in 1753, the Courts of the Quarter Sessions to be held by the Justices of the Peace, Sheriffs, and other Magistrates were put under the control and supervision of the Supreme Court in the same manner and form as the inferior courts and Magistrates in England were under the order and control of the Court of King’s Bench.
7. Jurisdiction as to Appeals – A civil appeal might be taken to the King-in-Council. It was to be filed within a period of six months of the delivery of judgment and the matter in dispute was to be over 1,000 Pagodas in value. Criminal appeals might also be preferred to the King in-Council, but in respect of them the Supreme Court was given full power and absolute discretion to allow or deny such appeals.
8. Power to Suspend Execution of Sentence – The Supreme Court was empowered to reprieve and suspend the execution of any capital sentence in hard cases which presented a proper occasion for mercy and wherein it might be proper to remit the general severity of the law. The records of the cases with the reasons for recommending the criminals to mercy were to be transmitted to the King-in-Council for consideration.
Immunity Available to Councillors and Judges
The Governor-General, the Councillors, the Chief Justice and the Judges of the Supreme Court were not liable to be arrested or imprisoned in any action, suit or proceeding except in cases of treason or felony.
Merits of the Supreme Court or How Far the Objectives Behind Its Establishment were Achieved ?
The merits of this court are as under –
1. The Supreme Court judges were professional lawyers, sent from England appointed by crown and holding their post during its pleasure. Thus, judges had knowledge of English law and could deal with the cases effecting life and property of the people.
2. The tenure of the judges was independent from the wishes of company or Calcutta Govt. This gave independence to judiciary,
3. For the first time judiciary was divorced from the executive,Thus, legality of administrative action of the company’s servants could be judged by the legal norms.
4. Jurisdiction of civil and criminal courts of 1753 was confined to the limits of Calcutta and could not thus take cognizance of cases arising in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The Englishman residing in these territories being beyond their jurisdiction could commit crime with impunity. This major defect was removed by the formation of this court.
5. The Supreme Court was simultaneously a Court of Law as well as a Court of Equity and having different kinds of jurisdiction as admiralty and ecclesiastical. In this way it was a great improvement of judicial system prevailing even in England at that time.
6. The Supreme Court was to have powers to supervise and control over the company’s courts and had powers to issue writs.
Defects of the Supreme Court or How Supreme Court Proved to be a Reign of Terror in Practice
Inspite of the above mentioned merits,the Supreme Court, had many defects i.e.
1. Vague Jurisdiction of Supreme Court – Provisions of Regulating Act in relation to Calcutta were specific, whereas relating to Bengal,Bihar and Orissa, they were quite vague and uncertain. The Act distinguished between Calcutta on the one hand and Bengal, Bihar and Orissa on the other hand. Similarly specific powers for administration and legislation regarding Calcutta were vested in Governor-General-in-Council but no such specific powers were vested in relation to Diwani territory. Therefore, it was very doubtful as to wheather the powers of Supreme Court extended to Diwani territory or not.
2. Vague Provisions of Law to be Applied by Supreme Court – Certain terms like ‘British Subjects’, ‘Subjects of His Majesty’, ‘Subject of Great Britain, of us and our heirs’, which were used to define jurisdiction of Supreme Court were not defined clearly.
3. Conflict Between the Executive and Judiciary – Supreme Court was given power to examine the legality of the Diwani Acts of the ‘company’s servants’ or ‘His Majesty’s subjects’ or persons ‘directly or indirectly in the service of the company’ whereas council was of the view that activities relating to revenue ‘collection do not come under courts jurisdiction. Unfortunately provisions of the Act did not make clear as to whether ‘Management etc.’ of revenue vested in council or not. Provisions relating to relations between Supreme Court and Governor-General and Council were uncertain. The Governor-General and Council were of the opinion that they were beyond the jurisdiction of the court, their act whether official or individual cannot be questioned in the court. On the other hand court took cognizance to their official and individual acts. This anomaly made relations of these two distasteful
4. Conflict Between the Supreme Court and Companý’s Court– Because of establishment of Supreme Court two independent and parallel judicial system came into existence, Adalats in Diwani territory and Supreme Court at Calcutta. There was no mutual relationship “between the two, therefore conflict between the two systems became inevitable. Patna and Kamaluddin Cases are the example of this conflict.
5. Harshness of the Procedure – Creation of Supreme Court gave rise to the difficulties for Indians residing in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, the court was out of harmony with the mode of life, traditions and manners of Indians. This created dissatisfaction among these people. Supreme Court followed the technical English common civil procedure. A very objectionable feature of this procedure was arrest on ‘mesne process’. This again gave rise to host of difficulties for Indians residing in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.
Conclusion
On account of the above mentioned difficulties and deficiencies the Regulating Act and the Supreme Court failed to fulfil the hopes of their framers, therefore it is remarked that instead of organising government the Regulation Act of 1773 organised the centres of conflict and the Supreme Court proved to be a reign of terror.
———————-
Questions
Discuss the composition, jurisdiction and working of the Supreme Court established in 1774 under the Regulating Act, 1773. How far the objectives behind its establishment were achieved ?
—————————