Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

UNIT - II
Circumstances which led to the passing of the Regulating Act:

1. East India Company Territorial Sovereignty: The East India Company had become a territorial

S
power after the Battle of Plassey and Buxer. The grant of Diwani in 1765 by the Mughal emperor
Shah Alam had established it as a defacto ruler in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. It was being felt that a
country like India should be ruled by the Parliament rather than through a trading company. Thus the
parliamentary intervention had become necessary.

KU
2. Dual System of Government and Administration: Dual system had left the people helpless
against the oppression both of Nawab and the servants of the company. The British Parliament
could not remain a passive spectator under such circumstances.

3. Unpopularity of the Servants of the Company: The retired servants of the company took away to
England with them the immense wealth of India and lived like Nawabs. They were nicknamed as
English Nawabs. Every body in England became jealous of them. In 1772 a select and a secret
parliamentary committee was appointed and its report showed that the servants of the company

M
received large amounts of money and on the other hand they were saying they were on the verge of
bankruptcy.

4. Grant of Diwani to the Company: The proprietors of the company were very happy on account of

A
good prospects of huge profits under the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa which was conferred
on the company by Shah Alam the Mughal emperor. But soon it was found that the company was
approaching bankruptcy. It led the government to pass the Regulatory Act to regulate the affairs of
the company.

K
5. The Greed of the British Parliament: The British Parliament also wanted to enjoy a share of huge
profit of the company.

6. The Two Great Disasters of 1769 and 1770: The defeat of the company by Haider Ali (the ruler of
Mysore) is 1769 undermined the prestige of the company and in 1770 a severe famine was broke
out in Bengal. These two incidents attracted the attention of the British government and
parliamentary intervention became necessary.

Objects of the Act:

1. Removal of the evils in the constitution of the company.

Provisions of the Act:

13
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

1. The qualification for a vote in the court of proprietors was raised from £500 to £1000.
2. It was also provided that instead of being annually elected, the directors were to hold office for four
years, a quarter of them being annually reelected.
3. The East India Company was kept under the control of the king of England and the system of
nominating high officials of the company, judges, members of the court of director started.
4. The governor-general was bound by the decision of the majority of the council. However, he had a
casting vote only in the case of tie.
5. The governors of Madras and Bombay were made subordinate to the governor-general atleast in
matters of war and peace.
6. Superior officers were given liberal salaries. All the servants of the company were forbidden to
receive any presents or bribes and to indulge in the private trade.

S
7. A Supreme Court of judicature was established in Bengal consisting of a chief justice and three
other judges. It had civil, criminal, admiralty, jurisdiction over all British subjects in the company's
dominions except the Governor General and the members of his council.
8. A Secretary of State for India was appointed in England to look after the activities and works of the

U
company. The members of the court of directors were directed to send all the papers, relating to
Indian Administration, civil and military, to the secretary of state.
9. The Governor General in council was empowered to make rules but prior permission of the home
secretary before making such rules was necessary.

K
Defects of the regulating Act:
1. No veto power to Governor General before his colleagues: Warren Hasting had to face difficult
times and was outvoted and over ruled by the majority of councellors.
2. Incompetent and hostile councellors were unfit for the jobs and they were against Warren Hastings

M
and created difficulties for him.
3. Defective and obscure provisions of the Supreme Court because nothing was mentioned regarding
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and its relation to the Governor General council was not
defined.

A
4. Inadequate control of Governor General over the presidencies which led to the presidencies of
Madras and Bombay acting on their own discretion, and started wars and made alliances without
references to the Governor General in council.
5. Insufficient parliamentary control over the company was responsible for in effective machinery to

K
study and scrutinise the reports sent by the Governor General in council in India.
6. Changes in the home government were not yet free from defects because the court of directors was
transformed into a more or less permanent oligarchy. The regulations regarding the court of
proprietors also failed to obtain the scrutiny against faction and disorder and integrity of conduct.

Removal of the defects of Regulating Act of 1773: Removed by the declaratory Act of 1781, the Pitts
India Act, 1784 and the Amendment Act of 1786. The Act of 1781 demarcated the relations between the
Supreme Court and the council. The Act of 1784 granted veto power to the Governor General, the
presidencies were made subordinate to the Governor General (1784). Thus all the defects of 1773. Act
were removed by the year of 1786.

Importance of the Regulating Act

1. It was an attempt to establish parliamentary control over the company.

14
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

the changed conditions.

Regulating Act is really a great landmark in the constitutional history of India because it completely altered
the character of the company from a commercial body to a political organisation.

SUPREME COURT AT CALCUTTA

The Regulating Act empowered the British Crown (George II) to establish a Supreme Court at Calcutta by
Issuing a charter under section 13 of the Act, which provided the creation of Supreme Court of judicature at
Calcutta and resulted in the abolition of the Mayor's court at Calcutta. By the Section 14 of the Act all the

S
subject residents of Calcutta, Fort William and Bengal, Bihar and Orissa were placed directly under the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Judges of the court were appointed by the Crown and it was made a
king's court and not a company's court. The court of requests was however allowed to continue.

U
Constitution of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court was established under the charter of 1774. The
charter of 1774 superseded the provisions of the charter of 1753. It consisted of a chief justice and three
other puisne judges. Later, the number was reduced from 3 to 2. They were to hold office during the
pleasure of the Crown. The judges of the Supreme Court were also the justice of peace. Sir Elijah Impey

K
was appointed as the first chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: The court had power to exercise civil, criminal, admiralty jurisdiction
and to do all things necessary for the administration of justice. It could take actions against every inhabitant
of India residing in Bangal, Bihar and Orissa. It also extended to the British subjects residing in Bengal,

M
Bihar and Orissa and to the persons directly or indirectly employed by or in the service of the company.

Criminal Juris9iction: It was constituted as a court of Oyer Terminer and Gaol Delivery for Calcutta and
Fort William and the factories subordinate to Fort William with power to administer criminal justice, in such a

A
manner as the courts of oyer terminer and gaol delivery did in England. It could hear and determine all
complaints against any person in the service of. the company or of any of the king's subjects. The court
could reprieve or suspend the execution of any capital sentence.

K
Supreme Court as an Admiralty Court: It was also appointed as a court of admiralty for the three
provinces and all the other territories and islands adjacent to, with power to hear and determine all cases
civil and maritime, according to the court of admiralty in England.

As an Equity Court: The Supreme Court was to act as a court of equity on the pattern of the chancery court
in England. In the administration of justice, as court of equality the Supreme Court decided cases according
to the principles of equity, justice and good conscience.

As an Ecclesiastical Court : The court was empowered to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the
provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa on the British subjects residing there in the same manner as it was
exercised in the diocese (Bishop jurisdiction) of London. The court could appoint guardians and keepers for
infants and insane persons and for their estates according to the rules prevalent in England.

Appeals to the King in Council: In civil cases the appeals from the Supreme Court could be filed in the
King in council with the permission of the Supreme Court provided the subject matter in dispute exceeded

15
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

1000 Pagodas. The petition seeking the permission of the Supreme Court was to be filed within a period of 6
months of the delivery of judgement.

In criminal cases the appeal from the Supreme Court could be represented to the king in council (with the
permission of the Supreme Court) but in respect of such appeals the Supreme Court had full power to allow
or deny the permission for such appeals. Besides the king in council reserved the right as a special case to
refuse or to admit an appeal.

Merits
It was a definite improvement over the Mayor's court and the court of oyer and Terminer and gaol delivery
working at Calcutta under the charter of 1753. Judges of the previous courts were English servants of the
company ignorant of the legal system while the judges of the Supreme Court were professional lawyers

S
appointed by the crown.

Working of the Supreme Court at Calcutta: The uncertainty and vagueness of the provisions of the
regulatory Act 1773 and the charter of 1774 resulted in a conflict between the Supreme Court and Supreme

U
Council (i.e. the Governor General in Council). The extent of the conflict may be explained with reference to
certain historical cases decided by the Supreme Court. These cases were decided during the period when
Impey was the chief justice of the Supreme Court. He was the first justice in India who made the people as
well as the executive government to realise the existence of judiciary. He came in India with the pledge to

K
introduce rule of law and an independent court and throughout his career he continued his struggle. In order
to introduce an independent judiciary and rule of law he challenged the government in council, the
Zamidars and the top officials of the company.

RAJA NAND KUMAR CASE

AM
During clive tenure Nand Kumar was considered to be a loyal Indian to the company and was called Black
Colonel. There were 2 groups in the Governor General in council -

1. Governor General Warren Hastings and the councillor Barwell.

So, we can say that Warren Hastings was in minority and Nand Kumar took this opportunity and brought

K
certain charges of corruption and bribery against Warren hastings before the council. He charged Warren
Hastings of receiving the bribe of 3'Y2 lakhs. And the council by majority decided that Hastings had
received this bribe from the widow Munni Begum of old Nawab Mir Jaffar. While the charges were still
pending against Warren Hastings, Nand Kumar was suddenly arrested at the instance of Calcutta
merchant Mohan Prasad on a charge of forgery. He was put on trial before the Supreme Court presided
over by Sir Elijah Impey on the charges of forgery in a mortgage case and was tried with the help of jury
consisting of 12 Englishmen. The trial began on 7th June, 1775 and continued for a period of 8 days and
Raja Nand Kumar was condemned to death. Several attempts have made to save the life of Raja Nand
Kumar. The defence council on behalf of Nand Kumar presented an application before the Supreme Court
for granting leave to appeal to the King in council (Privy council) but the application was rejected by it.
Besides, another application was presented before the Supreme Court to recommend the case for Mercy to
the British crown but the Supreme Court refused to forward it. Ultimately the death sentence was executed
and Raja Nand Kumar was hanged on 5th Aug. 1775 under an act of 1728 passed by the British Parliament.
Warren Hastings thus could fullfill his desire through the instrumentality of his friend Sir Elijah Impey ( Chief
Justice of Supreme Court).

16
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

Was it a Judicial Murder? Mills, Macaulay and other historians had accused Impey of having conspired
with Hastings and the execution of Nand ,Kumar was the result of such conspiracy. Some of them
challenged it on the ground that the trial was conducted not by Impey alone but by other judges of the
Supreme Court also and the whole court could not hold him guilty of forgery. Following are some points
which show that the case was not fairly decided.

1. There was doubtful jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as Raja Nand Kumar was not a resident of
Calcutta. Moreover the case of forgery was initiated against him on the complaint of Mohan Prasad
who was also a native Indian.

2. Two judges of the Supreme Court who had awarded capital punishment to Nand Kumar, were

S
committing Magistrates in Nand Kumar's case whereas on the ground of the principles of natural
justice these judges were not to form Jury of the Supreme Court because they could not remain un-
prejudiced against accused Nand Kumar.

U
3. Entire witnesses were subjected to sever cross examination by each of the judges, hence the
defence could not resist against the technicalities and lack of knowledge of English law on the
relevant points.

K
4. Nand Kumar was tried against an ex-past-facto law, which was not in force when the crime was
committed in 1770 whereas the Supreme Court was established only in the year 1774. Hence,
entire trial of Nand Kumar was contrary to the spirit of the English law.

5. Under the Hindu law the capital punishment was not prescribed for the offence of forgery. Even if the

M
crime against Nand Kumar was proved, he could not be subjected to capital punishment on any
account, as he was a Hindu Brahmin.

6. Thoughtlessly, there were repeated rejections of Nand Kumar's applications i.e. leave to appeal

A
before the King-in-Council and leave to pre-determined attitude of the Supreme Court.

It is submitted that Nand Kumar's case was a blatant example of miscarriage of justice of it is not regarded
as a judicial murder is a matter of controversy.

K
PATNA CASE
The Patna case is an example of a clear cut case of the confliction that arose between the company's courts
and the Supreme Court and finally between the latter and the Governor-General and Council because of
the obscurity of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Of course it also throws light on the bad state of affairs in
the Company's courts and the Supreme Court's desire to improve it.

In this case a suit for damages was filed in the Supreme Court in the latter half of 1777 by Naderah Begum, a
widow, against her husband's nephew, Bahadur Beg, (and her husband was Shahbaz Beg who was a
servant of the company) the Qazi of Patna and two Muftis of Patna's provincial court, for injuries alleged to
have been done to her, in consequence of the orders and of a degree of the Council at Patna, acting as a
court of justice.

The brief facts that led to this case were: one Sahbaz Beg Khan who had come from Kabul served the
Company for sometime and after retirement settled in Patna and married Naderah Begum from whom he

17
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

had no child. After sometime his nephew Bahadur Beg came from Kabul and stayed with him till his (Sahbaz
Beg Khan) death in 1776. On Sahbaz Beg's death dispute for inheritance arose between Naderah and
Bahadur, each claiming the whole property; Naderah under a gift (Hibbanama) alleged to have been
executed by her husband, and the nephew as adopted son.

On 2 January 1777 Bahadur Beg filed a suit in Patna Council alleging that he was the adopted son or
Sahbaz and therefore entitled to entire property. He also prayed that Naderah be stopped from removing
the property and the property already removed be restored. The same day Patna Council ordered the Qazi
and the two Muftis to make an inventory of the property of Sahbaz and allot the shares of each claimant
according to Mohammadan Law. After taking the evidence on both sides the Qazi and Muftis reported to the
Patna Council on 20 January 1770 that the gift deed was forged and that the property of the deceased be
divided into four shares, whereof three should be given to Bahadur Khan, his father being the legal heir of

S
the deceased and himself the adopted son, and the remaining share to Naderah, the deceased' widow.
Accepting the decision of the law officers the Patna Council ordered its execution. The law officers started
executing the order which was resisted by Naderah, who feeling humiliated took refuse in a Durgah. After
sometime Naderah came to Calcutta and filed a case for trespass and assault in the Supreme Court against

U
Bahadur Beg, Qazi and the two Muftis. The Governor-General and Council resolved to defend the case on
behalf of the Defendants because they were being prosecuted in the exercise of their judicial powers.

K
The legal issues that were raised in the trial, which was started in November 1778, were.

1. Whether Bahadur Beg, who lived outside Calcutta was SUbject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court; and

M
2. Whether the law officers could be prosecuted for acts done in their judicial capacity.

The Supreme Court decided both the issues in affirmative. On the first issue the court said that Bahadur
was a farmer of revenue and he was not different from the revenue collector and therefore was directly or

A
indirectly in the services of the Company. On the second issue the court held that although the Patna
Council was a legally constituted court having jurisdication to decide the civil disputes between Indians, it
had no jurisdiction to delegate its functions to the law officers, the Qazi and the Muftis.

K
After the rejection of these jurisdictional issues the defendants pleaded not gUilty. The only question which
the Court now had to decide was whether trespass and assault was committed and since it found that
Naderah was in possession of the property at the time the defendants proceeded against her and the
property their guilt was proved. The Court awarded Rs. 30000 damages and Rs. 9208-8 annas as cost to
Naderah.

The defendants were brought to Calcutta. Qazi died on the way and the rest of them were put in jail because
they failed to pay the damages awarded by the Court. They remained in jail till 12 August 1782 when they
were released on a bond executed by the Company in accordance with the provisions of the Act of
Settlement, 1781.

An appeal was also filed in the Privy Council in 1781 which was dismissed in 1789 for want of prosecution.

Later in March 1779, Naderah filed a similar case against the members of the Patna Council. Supreme
Court, rejecting the plea of the defendant that they acted in their judicial capacity held that their entire

18
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

proceedings were illegal and corrupt and accordingly awarded Rs. 15000 as damages.

While this case exposes the irregularities committed by the provincial councils in leaving their function to
the law officers and the Supreme Court's concern to condemn it, it also establishes the obscurity about the
Court's jurisdiction and consequent difficulties caused to the Company's administration in India. Ultimately
the entire loss fell on the Company because not only it had to pay the decree amount but also had to pay
some compensation to the Qazi's children and Muftis.

COSSIJURAH CASE
A serious conflict arose between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Council over the issue whether the
Supreme Court had the jurisdiction over the Zamidars who were involved in the revenue collection for the
company. In the early days every Zamindar or the farmer of land was required to find a surety, when the

S
Zamindar or the farmer of land was found defaulted in revenue collection, then it was the liability of the
surety to pay revenue to the company.

Disputes between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Council which began after the Regulating Act:

U
Kashinath native of Calcutta could not obtain repayment of loan from Raja Sundernarain, Zamindar of
Cossijurah. He filed a case against zamindar in the Supreme Court on 13th August 1779 and the court
issued a writ against Raja ordering arrest in which a bail amount of Rs. 3 lacks was allowed to be taken.

K
Raja Sunder Narain was zamindar of Cossijurah, situated in the district of Midnapur in Orissa. He was
engaged in revenue collection for the company and had to pay annually £20000 to the company as
revenue. Kashinath a principal merchant of Calcutta was his surety that is if Sunder Narain and not pay
revenue then it would be collected from Kashi Nath. This Kashinath gave a loan to Raja Sundernarain of
Cossijurah. The amount was large and the Raja could not repay it for long time. Consequently Kashinath

M
brought a suit against the Raja in Aug. 1779 for the repayment of loan and also stated that Raja as a
Zamindar was liable to the court in revenue disputes. Upon this affidavit the Supreme Court issued a writ of
arrest against the Raja in which a bail to the amount of 3 lakhs of rupees was allowed to be taken. Raja
Sundernarain hearing of this writ absconded in order to avoid the execution of the court and the writ was

A
returned to the court unexecuted. In the meantime supreme council after consulting with the advocate-
general informed the Raja and other land holders not to pay any attention to the Supreme Court unless they
were the servants of the company or had voluntarily accepted its jurisdiction. After receiving such directions
from the supreme council the Raja was encouraged to use force and therefore when the Sheriff came again

K
to serve the writ and arrest him his people drove away the Sheriff and even the collector of Midnapur
refused to give any assistance to the Sheriff's men because of the direction of the Supreme Council.
Another writ was issued by the Supreme Court, the Sheriffs men started for Cossijurah. It was alleged by
the Raja that the Sheriffs men had entered into his house and also in the Zanana (Le. women's apartment)
and committed outrages upon the places of religious worship. In the meantime the Supreme Council
(governor in council) directed Col. Ahmity, the officer commanding the troops at Midnapur to detach a
sufficient force and arrest Sherif's men. Warren Hastings declared that they were upon the eve of an open
war with the court. Assistant collector of Midnapur Bamsford arrested the Sheriff and his men and kept them
in confinement for three days and thereafter sent them to Calcutta as prisoners. Sheriff and his men were
released by the Supreme Council but the council directed Col., Ahmity to resist any further writ of the
Supreme Court.

Action taken by Supreme Court: Kashinath brought an action against Governor General and council,
attorney of the company and the officers who caught hold of Sheriff's party. Governor General and council
appeared before the Supreme Court. However the Governor General and members of the council who first

19
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

appeared in the court later refused to submit to the jurisdiction the court for acts done by them in their public
capacity and thus the judiciary and the executives were up in arms against each other. The Supreme
Council interfered with the court because the Supreme Court had asserted a jurisdiction over the
zamindars as they were not under the court jurisdiction under the terms of the Charter and the RegUlating
Act. However, this assumption was not totally correct. The Supreme Court never held that the zamindars as
such were in the company's employment and subject to its jurisdiction. When a person filed a suit in the
Supreme Court and presented an affidavit to show that person complained of was subject to its jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court used to issue a writ of capias to force his appearance. On appearance before the court
he could plead as to its jurisdiction; no further action was taken if the court accepted this plea. That is why
Raja of Cossijurah had to appear before the court in respect to the capias and then only he could say that he
was not under its jurisdiction.

S
Petition to Parliament: The British inhabitants of Bengal signed a petition against the power of the
Supreme Court which it was exercising and sent it to the British Parliament for consideration as to the extent
of the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the residents of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Simultaneously the
Governor General and council also made a petition to this effect. The outcome of these petitions was the

U
Act of 1781, which was aimed to provide relief to certain persons who were in prisons at Calcutta and to
compensate the Governor General and the members of his council and all the officers who acted under the
orders of the governor in interfering with the process of the Supreme Court.

K
Issues involved: There were two important issues involved in this case:

1. Whether the zamindars were subject to the jurisdiction of Supreme Court.

2. Who was the competent authority to decide whether or not the zamindars were under the

M
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Regarding first issue, this could not be decided by Supreme
Court because Sundernarain did not appear before the court in order to plead its jurisdiction
because it was proper for the zamindar to appear before the court and plead to its jurisdiction and in
the case of its judgement against him, to appear to the king in council, but the Supreme Council and

A
zamindars both used force against Supreme Court.
Who was the Competent Authority: The Supreme Court held that it was the court and not the council
which was the competent authority to determine this issue.

K
Conclusion: It was to be decided by the court that a particular person was or was not without the
jurisdiction of Supreme Court. It could be done by the court itself and the court could only do so when the
person appeared before it and placed all the relevant facts and circumstances enabling the court to decide
the question of his jurisdiction. In the Cossijurah case there was no question of the court's exceeding its
jurisdiction and the allegation against the court was unfounded. The court held everyone in Bengal, Bihar
and Orissa was subject to its jurisdiction to this extent that he was bound if sued in the Supreme Court to
appear and to plead to the jurisdiction.

KAMAL-UD-DIN CASE

In 1775 Kamal-ud-din a farmer of Hidglee and was prosecuted without bail by the Calcutta Revenue
Council on the grounds of arrears of revenues due from him. This claim he disputed being an ostensible
holder on behalf of Kantu Babu. It was customary to release the persons on bail in such cases but he was
refused the bail. He obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court to set him free.

20
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

The Supreme Court held that in the cases of disputed accounts, a person should be held to bail till the
enquiry as to his obligation to pay was completed. Judges further stated that Kamal-Ud-Din should not be
imprisoned until his under-renter had been called upon to pay the arrears and had proved to be insolvent.
The Government regarded this order of the Court as an encroachment on the diwani rights of the Company
which it contended the Supreme Court had no right to interfere with, as the Regulating Act did not make any
such provision to empower the court to do so. The diwani rights, the Council contended, were vested in the
Governor-General and the Council solely and exclusively and the Court proceedings in the release of
Kamal-Ud-Din exceeded its jurisdiction and were against law. The majority of the Supreme Council,
therefore, decided to order to the Provincial Council to re-imprison Kamal-UdDin who was set free by the
orders of the Supreme Court in the matters of revenues. But GovernorGeneral, Warren Hastings, refused
to support the proposed steps of the majority of the Supreme Council.

S
Chief Justice Impey in his letter to the Court of Directors justified the Court's action on two grounds:

1. In such cases, it has been the usual practice for the Supreme Council to take bail and so the Court
made the direction to take bail and

KU
2. It has been an established practice to demand rent from the under-renter before demanding from
the farmer and the Court's order was in conformity with this practice in the present case. He
maintained the Court had intervened to prevent the Company's offers from acting under the colour
of legal proceedings being guilty of most aggravated injustice. In the present case, the Court had
simply compelled the revenue officers to act in conformity with the established custom and usages
of revenue collection.

The above judgment of the Supreme Court was a rude shock to the Company's servants engaged in

M
collecting revenues from the farmers. The servants of the East India Company strongly protested against
such action of the court but had the legislators specifically described in clear and unambiguous terms the
sphere of Executive and Judiciary in Regulating Act, such a situation could have been avoided. The
decision again highlighted the defective drafting and ambiguities in the language used in the Regulating

A
Act, 1773.

ACT OF SETTLEMENT 1781

K
The Act was passed to remedy the defects of Regulating Act of 1773 as the Government was facing
difficulties in its task of collecting revenues. The Preamble of the Act stated: "Whereas it is expedient the
lawful Government of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa should be supported," Therefore the Act made provisions
which were more favourable to the Governor-General and the Council shall not jointly and severally be
Subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for any act done by them in their official capacity. The most
important provision from the point of view of Hindus and Mohammedans was Section, 17, which stated that
"all matters arising out of inheritance and succession to land and goods and matters of contracts be
determined according to personal laws of the respective parties."

Further restrictions were put by the Act on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain any matter
concerning revenues or concerning any acts done in the collection of revenue thereby giving full protection
to the Government in revenue matters. All zamindars, land-holders and farmers who paid land revenue to
the Government were put out of its jurisdiction. But the Supreme Court was empowered to have jurisdiction
in actions for wrongs or trespass and in civil cases when parties had agreed in writing to submit their case to
the Supreme Court voluntarily. The Act gave recognition to the Company's court namely, Sadar Diwani and

21
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

Fauzdari Adalats and provided the Sadar Diwani Adalat (Governor and Council) shall be an appellate court
to hear appeals from the decisions of the mofussil courts in civil cases. Its judgements were to be final upto
Rs. 5000/- but if the subject matter was, of Rs. 5000/- or more a further appeal was provided to the kirig-in-
Council. Therefore the Company's courts were brought on the same footing as that of Supreme Court. The
importance of this provision can be judged in the light of the decision given by the Supreme Court in the
Patna case. It was negation of the approach adopted by the Court in that case which affected adversely the
moral of the judicial officers of the Company's courts.

Lastly, before the Act of 1781 the Supreme Court was interfering in the working of the mofussil courts
established by the Company to administer justice amongst the persons residing in the mofussil areas
located outside the city limits of Calcutta.

S
PITTS INDIA ACT 1784
To interfere in the affairs of the India British crown in 1783 attempted in the form of Fox India's Bill after 1781
Act, whose provisions according to Fox was the only possible means of averting the final and complete
destruction of the company's interest:

U
1. The commercial functions of the company to be kept separately
2. The political function should be placed under the direct control of the crown.

K
With the rejection of the Fox India Bill the Coalition Ministry was dismissed by the king and he invited Pitt the
younger to form the new ministry and Pitt introduced his own Bill in 1784 which was passed into ar Act. Pitt
created the dual authority of the Board of Control and the court of directors over the affairs 01 the company
in India.

M
Provisions:
1. The company affairs were divided into 2 parts
- Commercial affairs
- Political affairs.

A
2. The commercial affair of the company were put directly under the control of the court of directors.
3. The political affairs of the company were put directly under the control of the second organ of the
management i.e. Board of Control consisting of exchequer, Secretary of State and four privy
councillors.

K
4. The governor-general was to administer the government with the help of three members only, one
of whom has to be the commander in chief. The Governor General in council was given the powers
of superintendence over the Governor General in Madras and Bombay.
5. The court of proprietors was given the powers to make important appointments in India to handle
the Indian affairs.
6. All offences committed by the Crown's servants in India were to be tried by the English courts in
England. A special court for this purpose was created in England.
7. The Act also emphasised on the policy of non-intervention with regard to the Indian princely states
as it was laid down in the Act itself.

The main effect of the passing of the Act was to transfer the real power in government of the country into the
hands of the board of control which was able to dictate its terms to the directors as they were virtually thrown
at the mercy of the President of the Board of Control.

22
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1. What were the causes, provisions and defects of the Regulating Act of 1773? What steps were
taken to remove these defects?

Q.2. Give an account of the Supreme Court under the Crown's Charter of 1774.

Q.3. Nand Kumar murder was a judicial murder. Do you agree with the statement?
Q.4. There was a constant confliction between the executive and the judiciary. Discuss by giving
examples from the historical cases.

Q.5.

Q.6.

S
How far did the Amending Act of 1781 remove the difficulties created by the Regulating Act?

Write a critical note on the Pitt's India Act, 1784.

U
K
AM
K
23