MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) Year-I, Semester-II: Academic Year : 2021-2022

First Open Book Assessment, February-2022

Course Code and Name: 2.3 HISTORY-II (LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY)

Name of Student: Prashant Shukla UID: UG-21-81

Question 1.

The Governor-Generalship of Lord Cornwallis was extended from 1786 to 1793 and
during his tenure, heintroduced a number of judicial and legal administrative reforms.
Many scholars cited his generalship as a remarkable and highly creative period in
Indian legal history. Consider the above statement and explain the Cornwallis Judicial
plan of 1793 and state the reforms made to the 1787 and 1790 judicial plan.

Answer 1.

The Transition from Justice dictated by individual discretion (under the preceding Mughal
rule) to that governed by the 'rule of law', was the revolutionary achievement of the British
Indian Administration. This process was initiated by Lord Cornwallis whose governor-
generalship of Bengal Presidency (1786-93) also marks the beginning of the modern Indian
judiciary which, in its ultimate analysis, emerged as a synthesis of progressive Western ideas
with a legal and judicial structure suited to Indian conditions.

In reorganizing the judicial administration of Bengal on liberal Whig concepts, Cornwallis

made a sharp break with the preceding administration of Warren Hastings, which had kept
justice entirely subordinated to revenue considerations. But the significance of Cornwallis's
judicial reforms does not end at that. Cornwallis's ideas and the structure raised on them,
operated to create a very strong administrative tradition which held a firm grip over the
succeeding administrations in Bengal for the next thirty-four years, until the arrival of
Bentinck in 1828.

1
After the term of Hastings, the merger of revenue and judicial functions was advocated to
lessen the expenses of the administration and the same was affected in 1786. It resulted in
destruction of independence of judiciary. The Governor-General ship of Lord Cornwallis
which extended from 1786 to 1793 constitutes a very remarkable and a highly creative period
in Indian legal history. Cornwallis introduced changes in the judicial system thrice: first, in
1787; then in 1790 and, finally, in 1793.

By the time he left India, he had thoroughly reorganised the judicial system, both civil and
criminal, in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and placed it on an entirely new basis. He introduced for
the first time the principle of administration according to law. The adalat system left behind
by him won praise and encomium from all quarters. It enjoyed such a high place in the esteem
of the people as well as the administrators that it was adopted as the model for the judicial
systems introduced later in the Provinces of Madras and Bombay.

Judicial Plan of 1787

Lord Cornwallis’ new plan of 1787 combined the revenue and judicial administration into a
single authority, we still call the Collector. The Collector had the power to collect land
revenue and settle revenue disputes. He was also the district magistrate who could get
criminals arrested and try petty matters. 

1. The Collector heard revenue matters in the Mal Adalat. An appeal against the Collector’s
decision went to the board of revenue at Calcutta, and a second appeal lay with the
Governor-General and Council. 

2. Civil matters were heard at the Diwani Adalat, established in each district with the
Collector as the sole judge with powers to decide all types of civil cases. A registrar would
assist the Collector. Cases of up to Rs. 200 could be referred to the registrar. Appeals went
to the Sardar Diwani Adalat at Calcutta in issues with a valuation of Rs. 100 or more. A
second appeal went to the King in Council in matters exceeding Rs. 5,000 in value.

2
3. The Collector also got some magisterial powers in criminal matters—to arrest, hear
evidence, also send cases to the criminal court with his opinion. He could try petty cases
and impose a maximum punishment of “15 strips” or 15-day imprisonment.

Judicial Plan of 1790

The plan of 1790 mainly focused on the criminal administration of justice. Court fees were
introduced, ostensibly to reduce the burden on courts. Allowances of the judges and other
officers of the court were increased and fixed, to stem corruption and influence. The districts
were divided into four divisions—Murshidabad, Calcutta, Dacca, and Patna. 

The 1790 reform also eliminated the name of Nawab from the criminal justice
administration. The new administration system went into the hands of the English servants
of the company, assisted by Muslim law officers. 

The pre-existing Mofussil Faujdari Adalat was abolished and in its place, three types of
distinct courts were established: 

 Court of the District Magistrate—The district magistrate was given the same functions as
he had under the plan of 1787, to arrest criminals, take evidence and commit them to the
circuit court for trial. For minor crimes, he could punish up to “15 Rattans” or 15 days
imprisonment. He also had to maintain all records about the work he had done that were to
be examined by the Circuit Court. 

 Circuit Court—The entire Moffussil Area was divided into four divisions, Patna, Calcutta,
Murshidabad, and Dhaka. A Circuit [moving] Court was established in each division,
consisting of two servants of the company who administered criminal justice in all matters
presented by the district magistrate. It visited each district twice a year to try those charge-
sheeted by the Magistrate. A Qazi and mufti assisted the court. 

 The Sadar Nizamat Adalat was transferred to Calcutta from Murshidabad. The Governor-
General and council were the judges. They were assisted by a Qazi and mufti in Muslim
law cases. The concept of blood money was abolished. Very harsh punishments such as

3
 the mutilation of bodies were abolished. The Sadar Nizamat Adalat could only pass
capital punishment. 

The plan of 1790 also changed the evidence law. Discriminatory provisions related to religion
and gender were abolished. All witnesses were made equal before the law. There were also
some provisions for the rehabilitation of criminals after they finish their sentences. 

Judicial Plan of 1793

Cornwallis reforms of 1793 were based on two basic postulates of the British Constitutional
Law, separation of the judiciary from the executive and the subjection of the executive to
judicial control. During the term of Lord Cornwallis (1786-1796) by Regulation II of 1793,
India again experienced the much-desired bifurcation of judicial function from the revenue
and executive functions. No executive officer was to exercise judicial functions. The
executing officers were now under the jurisdiction of the Adalats. He wanted the courts to
become the protectors of the rights of the people. 

After this plan, any person could sue the government for damages in the Diwani Adalat in
the same way that he could sue a private person. British subjects were made amenable to
Diwani Adalat. Court fees were abolished so that people could approach the court without
much expense. 

The Sardar Diwani Adalat was authorised to appoint pleaders and issue Sunnuds. Only people
of good reputation, legal knowledge, and character could become pleaders. If any pleader was
guilty of corruption, he could be suspended or dismissed. 

A schedule was drawn up for a moderate fee charged by the pleader. This plan is also called
the Cornwallis code. The 1793 plan reorganised the courts. A complete hierarchy of courts
was established to deal with civil matters: 

 Sardar Diwani Adalat—The highest court in the judicial hierarchy consisted of the
Governor-General and council. It heard appeals against the decisions of the provincial
courts of appeal in the matter exceeding Rs. 1000. An appeal against the decision of this
court could go to the king in council in cases exceeding Rs. 5000. 
4
 Provincial Court of appeals—The provincial courts of appeals were established in four
divisions: Patna, Dacca, Calcutta, and Murshidabad. The court consisted of three British
servants of the company as its judges. The court had the jurisdiction to try civil suits
referred to by the government or the Sadar Diwani Adalat to receive corruption charges
against the Diwani Adalat judges. It was the court of appeal in all matters and also had
direct control over subordinate courts. 

 Diwani Adalat—A British servant of the company was the judge of the Diwani Adalat; he
had no other work except deciding the civil and revenue disappear. The judge had to take
an oath of impartiality and was required to keep proper records of all the proceedings. 

 Registrar’s court—Diwani Adalat could refer the suits up to Rs. 2000 to the court of a
registrar, which a servant of the company held. The orders of the registrar were to be
countersigned by the judge of that Diwani Adalat.

 Munsif’s Court—Zamindars, Tehsildars, and other respectable persons were appointed as

Munsif to try suits up to Rs.50. Munsifs were selected so that no person would have to
travel more than 10 miles to file a suit.

 Ameen’s Court—The court of Ameen, junior to Munsif, had the same composition and
powers as the court of Munsif, but it could not entertain a case directly unless the Diwani
Adalat transferred it. 

In the criminal justice administration, not many changes were made. The magisterial powers
of the collectors were transferred to the judge of the Diwani Adalat. The powers of the
magistrate were extended to punish criminals in petty offences with imprisonment to 15 days
or a fine of Rs. 100. The provincial courts of appeal replaced the Circuit Court. The provincial
court of appeal became the main court of criminal jurisdiction after the coming of this plan. 

Under the plan of 1793, the land revenue assessment was fixed permanently with
zamindars (hereditary revenue collectors). Permanent Settlement increased the company’s
land revenues in Bengal. It gave absolute rights to own land to zamindars on the condition
that they paid a sum of land tax which Company officials fixed in perpetuity. 
5
This system provided the British with an Indian landowning class interested in supporting
British authority. Thus, a highly unequal agrarian society was produced, in which the peasant
farmers found their lives harder than ever.  But from the point of view of the Company, the
reforms were a huge success. 

Question 2.

The Charter of 1726 constitutes a landmark in Indian Legal History. On account of its
great significance in the sphere of law and justice, the Charter is usually characterised
as the ‘judicial Charter’. With reference tothe above statement,explain the changing
nature of Mayor’s Court and how it seems more effective than the previous Mayor’s
Court?

Answer 2.

Establishment of Mayors Court

The mayor and two council members gave justice and appeal went to the Governor within 14
days. Further appeal could be made to the king in council if matter involved more than 1000
pagodas This way first time Indians got right to file appeal in the king in council.

 A sheriff was appointed for each ten miles of area by the Governor and council annually,
in simple terms he was the police officer. When complained was given to the court, the
court issued the summons in writing to the Sheriff and he brought the accused in the court,
he handed the summons to the concern party. If party accused did not come on that day,
the warrant was issued and Sheriff brought them before the courts, bail was granted
sometimes.

 For criminal jurisdiction, justice of peace was established same like England Criminal
jurisdiction system followed all the British criminal system and procedures. Charter of
1726 empowered the governor and his council to make by laws, rules and ordinances for

6
 the regulation of corporation. In Madras charter became effective from the 17th August
1727. In Bombay 10th February 1728 Calcutta December 1727 the implementation of
charter started. The company directed the courts to maintain records and send them to
England to know how they are working. With these establishments common Indians also
start to file the more and more cases in the courts. Mayors Court, Governor, and Council
always got disputes regarding jurisdiction in presidency towns. This fights resulted into
the weakening of Judiciary in the future and executive became powerful. Company
adopted policy not to get involved in the Indian customs and disputes but if the matter
went to the Mayors Court they adopted English procedures.

Mayor's Court under the Charter of 1687

A Corporation was set up by the Company at Madras on 29 Sep., 1688, under the Charter of
1687. It was created with the purpose of associating natives with the Englishmen Its to fulfil
this purpose, the Company wanted to undertake certain public fare activities for which funds
were needed. The Corporation cotters taxes and raised funds from the inhabitants of Madras.

Composition—The Madras Corporation consisted of an English Mayor, 12 Aldermen and 60

or 120 Burgesses. Out of the twelve Aldermen, three were to be the covenanted English
servants of the Company while the rest could be of any nationality. The Mayor was to hold
office for one year and he was elected by the Aldermen from amongst themselves. The
aldermen held office for life or till the residence in Madras, The vacancy of an Alderman was
to be filled up by election from amongst the Burgesses. The Burgesses were to be elected by
the Mayor and Aldermen while few of them were nominated by the Company from the heads
of the various castes.

Civil and Criminal jurisdiction—The Mayor and Aldermen constituted a civil court, while the
Mayor and three senior Aldermen were Justices of Peace having criminal jurisdiction. The
Mayor and two Aldermen formed the quorum. The Court held its sitting only once in a
fortnight and decided criminal cases with the help of jury. The Court could award the
sentence of imprisonment or fine. Appeals from the decisions of the Mayor's Court lay to the
Admiralty Court in ease the value of the civil case exceeded three pagodas, and in criminal
cases, where the offender was sentenced to death or loss of limb.

7
Court of Record—The Mayor's court constituted a Court of Records since a Recorder was
also attached to the Court. As all the members of the Mayor's Court were lay persons without
expertise in law. It dispensed justice "in a summary manner according to equity, justice and
good conscience" and law enacted by the Company. Obviously, this was bound to result into
uncertainty and lack of uniformity in laws.

For the purpose of providing the services of a person having legal knowledge, the Company
appointed Sir John Biggs, the Judge-Advocate of the Admiralty Court, as the Recorder of
Mayor's Court in 1688. This appointment of Sir John Biggs as a Recorder of the Mayor's
court created an anomaly because as a Judge-Advocate of the Admiralty Court, he also heard
appeals from the Mayor's Court, with which he was associated as a Judge. However, this
anomaly did not last long since Sir John Biggs died in 1689, and thereafter, the Company did
not appoint any Recorder in the Mayor's Court.

Mayor's Court under the Charter of 1726

Working of the Mayor's Court of 1726. The Charter of 1726, adopted the principle of
independence of judiciary to a considerable extent which was a fortunate development in the
legal history of India. But the constant assertion of judicial independence by the judges of the
Mayor's court proved irksome to the Governor and Council which resulted into constant
conflict and hostility between the two. As rightly observed by Kaye, this made the
Corporations, and consequently the Courts, largely autonomous but the Council at times
sought to interfere with the functioning of the Mayor’s Court and tried to dictate its terms
which the Courts did not like. The strained relations between the Mayor's Court and the
Governor and Council also led to the serious differences between the Government and the
Corporation which are reflected in the following cases-

That the Mayor's Court had no authority to decide cases involving disputes relating to caste
or religion of natives and warned the Mayor's Court not to interfere in such cases. The Case
of Arab Merchant—In 1930 a dispute arose between the Court and the Council. An Arab
merchant brought a suit in the Mayor's Court for recovery of the valuable pearls which were
alleged to have been extorted from him by the men who saved him from a burning boat from
the coast of Gujarat. The defendants had already been tried earlier for piracy and acquitted.
The Council made suggestion to the Mayor's Court against the validity of merchant's claim.
8
But the Mayor's Court ignored the suggestion and decreed the suit. On appeal, this decision
was reversed by the Governor and. Council by casting vote of the Governor.

The Oath Case of Bombay—In Bombay, a dispute arose in 1726 over the issue of form of
oath to be prescribed for Hindu witnesses. The Mayor and Aldermen of Bombay were usually
the members of the Grand Jury at a Quarter sessions. A conflict arose between the Bombay
Council and the Mayor's Court as to the form of oath for Hindu witnesses. The Grand Jury
held up two successive sessions by refusing to find and 'true bills', unless the Hindu
interpreter and witnesses were sworn upon the 'Cow' instead of the holy 'Geeta". This touched
the sentiments of the Hindu natives and they felt aggrieved.

Contrast Between the Mayor’s Court in 1687 and 1726

Before 1726 there were diverse legal frameworks working in the British Settlement, which
were expanded in number by 1726. Therefore the hirelings of the many, working at such
unique settlements were liable to various arrangements of courts. There was, hence an
absence of consistency in the British settlements, for a similar offence which involve unique
and once in a while Contrary Penal Consequence. There was additionally another factor
which constrained the Company to have a uniform law.

There were very vital recognising highlight between the Company's Mayer's Court and the
Crown's Mayor's Courts built up under the Charter of 126. The principle contrasts are given
underneath,

(1) The Mayor's Court under the Charter of 1687 was made by the Company while the
Mayor's Courts under the Charter of 1726 drew their energy straightforwardly from the
Crown. Along these lines the last were on a predominant balance than the previous.

(2) The Charter of 1687 made just a single Mayor's Court at Madras, it didn't contact the legal
framework winning in different settlements, administrations under the Company. The Charter
of 1726 made Mayor' Courts at all the three administrations that is Madras, Calcutta and
Bombay consequently, out of the blue, building up a uniform legal framework.

9
(3) The Mayor's Court built up under the Charter of 1687 appreciated both common and
criminal ward. While the chairman's courts set up under the Charter of 1726 leader's Courts
set up under the Charter of ( were given ward in common issues including testamentary and
probate of wills locale, Criminal issues were left to be chosen by am inside the purview of,
Governor in-Council which went about as a court in such issues.

(4) The Charter of 1726 made, out of the blue, an arrangement for a moment request to the
King-in-Council which turned into a forerunner of the Privy Council later on. Therefore under
this Charter, the main interest could be recorded before the Governor-in-Council and the
second (despite the fact that now and again) offer could be taken to the King-in-Council in
England. The Charter of 1687 did not make such arrangement. The interest from the Mayor's
court could be documented under the steady gaze of the Admiralty Court.

(5) The Mayor's Court built up under the Charter of 1687 made an arrangement for the
portrayal of the locals on the court. The Crown's Mayors Courts did not have any such
portrayal, however there was an arrangement for the same in the Charter of 1726.

(6) No uncertainty, the Crown's Mayor's Courts set up under the contract of 1726 were
unquestionably unrivalled courts so far as their status is concerned, yet in strict legal and
legitimate way, the Company's Mayor's Court was better prepared, for there was an
arrangement for a legal counselor part who was to be known as the Recorder. The Charter of
1726 despite the fact that it implied to enhance the legal framework in India, did not make any
such arrangement. . Hence the Courts set up in 1726 were for the most part made out of
Company's government workers who did not have adequate involvement in lawful issues.

(7) There was yet another imperative qualification between the two Mayor's Courts. The
Company's Mayor Court developed its own method and apportioned equity as per the
standards of presence of mind, value and great inner voice. It dodged the complicated
procedural details. Yet, the Charter of 1726 which brought the British laws into India brought
all the legitimate details of the British Courts of law. In this manner the whole extent of
British laws and its strategy were foisted on the Courts built up under the Charter of 1726.

(8) The Charter of 1726, as it were, got rid of the idea of partition between the official and the
legal in criminal issues. The Governor-in-Council went about as the criminal court while the
10
Mayor's Courts taken care of just the common issues and testamentary and probate of wills
cases. Then again, the Mayor's Court at Madras was contributed with energy to deal with all
polite and criminal issues and bids from its choices went to the Admiralty Court instead of the
Governor-in-Council.

The Charter of 1726 likewise constituted a Mayor's Court for every one of the administration
towns comprising of a Mayor and nine Aldermen. Three of them i.e., the Mayor or senior
Alderman together with two other Aldermen were required to be available to frame the
majority of the Court. The Mayor's Courts were proclaimed to be available to fan the majority
of the Court. The Mayor's Courts were announced to be Courts of record and were approved
to attempt, hear and decide every single common activity and supplications amongst gathering
and gathering. The Court was likewise allowed testamentary locale id energy to issue letters
of organization to the legitimate beneficiary of the expired individual. It was approved to
practice its purview over all people living in the administration possess and working in the
Company's subordinate production lines. Advances from choices of Mayor's Court were
documented in the Court of Governor and Council. A moment claim in cases including 1000
pagodas or more could be made to lord in-chamber in England. The court of Governor and
Council additionally chose criminal cases.

Question 3.

The Regulating Act of 1773 may be regarded as the British Parliament's first attempt to
construct a regular government for India and to intervene in the control of the
Company's administration. Explain the above stated act with special reference to the
landmark development in the judicial administrative system.

Answer 3.

The Regulating Act of 1773 was the first step taken by the British government to control and
regulate the affairs of the East India Company in India, as well as the first time the Company's
political and administrative functions were recognized. This act was created as a result of the

11
British East India government's mismanagement, which caused the company to go bankrupt,
forcing the government to intervene. 

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT AT CALCUTTA

An important innovation made by the Regulating Act was the creation of the Supreme Court
at Calcutta under SECTION 13 of the Act. Supreme Court at Calcutta was created by the
Royal Charter. King George III on 26 March 1774 issued the charter establishing the
Supreme Court. It was a crown’s court.

The Governor General, Members of the Council and the judges of the Supreme Court were
appointed as justices of Peace and were empowered to hold Quarter session for administering
criminal justice.

Sir Elijah Impey was appointed as the first Chief Justice of Supreme Court at Calcutta. It took
the place of the former Mayor’s Court with more elaborate machinery. The Court was
constituted of a Chief Justice and three puisine judges appointed by the King from barristers
of at least five years’ experience. The authority of these judges was like those of King’s
Bench in England.  Engaging in commercial pursuits and receiving presents, which were
common practices among the company servants of the time, were strictly forbidden. 

The Court had the power to try civil, criminal, admiralty cases and it had to be a Court of
Record and had the power to try both Civil and Criminal cases even.  It was given supreme
jurisdiction over all British subjects including the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. It
extended to the servants of majesty, company servants etc.

Supreme Court was not allowed to hear the cases against the Governor General and Council
and exception was crime of felony or treason. The Supreme Court was also made to consider
and respect the religious and social customs of the Indians. Appeals could be taken from the
provincial courts to the Governor-General-in-Council and from there to King-in-Council.

Governor General and council got the powers to make the laws and rules but with the
condition that all the rules and laws must be registered in the Supreme Court and did
not become effective until they were registered and published in the Supreme Court .Any
12
person in India got the power to appeal against such rules within sixty days in the King’s
council, which then set aside such a rule or changed the law. The appeal was to be made in the
Supreme Court of Calcutta within stipulated period. It was mandatory to send all the rules
made by Governor General to a secretary of state in England. King in council got the suo
moto  power to change or disallow any law. Thus, The Supreme Court reviewed the law
before it became the law.

WRITS

In common law, a writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or
judicial jurisdiction; it is often described as a formal order issued by a government authority
in the name of sovereign power.

 origin
In India writs were introduced by the Regulating Act, 1773 under which the Supreme Court
was established in Calcutta. The charter also introduced High Courts and these High Courts
had analogous power to issue writ as successor to the Supreme Court. The writ jurisdiction of
both the courts was limited to their original civil jurisdiction which they enjoyed
under Specific Relief Act, 1877.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

The Constituent assembly of India while drafting the constitution of India had adopted the
very feature of British Judicial System and mentioned it in our constitution in the name
of Constitutional remedies in Article 32 and Article 226. The aim behind introducing the writ
in our Constitution is to ensure the existence of Fundamental rights for all the person and
citizen of Country. The power to issue writs remain with the Supreme Court and the High
Courts. 
Different types of writs includes the following:

1. Habeas Corpus

The Latin term habeas corpus means ‘you may have the body ‘. By this writ the court directs
the person or authority who has detained another person to bring the body of the prisoner
13
before the court so as to enable the court to decide the validity, jurisdiction or justification for
such detention. The principal aim of the writ is to ensure swift judicial review of alleged
unlawful detention on liberty or freedom of the prisoner or detention. The great value of the
writ is that it enables immediate determination of the right of a person as to his freedom.

2. Quo Warranto

The term quo warranto means what is your authority . The writ of quo warranto is used to
judicially control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices
under relevant statutory provisions. The writ calls upon the holder of a public office to show
to the court under what authority he is holding the office in question. If he is not entitled to
the office, the court may restrain him from acting in the office and may also declare the office
to be vacant. The writ proceedings not only give a weapon to control the executive from
making appointments to public office against law but also tend to protect the public from
being deprived of public office to which it has a right.

3. Mandammus

Mandamus is a Latin term meaning “to command,” and it is a writ which is issued to any
person or authority who has been prescribed a duty by the law. Mandamus cannot be issued to
a private person or company with private obligations or to enforce a private contract. This
writ compels the authority to do its duty. Mandamus does not create a new duty instead it
compels the performance of an already existing duty.

4. Prohibition

An order from a superior court to a lower court or tribunal directing the judge and the parties 
to cease the litigation becausethe lower court does not have proper jurisdiction to hear or dete
rmine the matters before it. 

A writ of prohibition is anextraordinary remedy that is rarely used.

5. Certiorari

14
When a party loses in a court of law, it is often allowed to appeal the decision to a higher
court. In some instances, parties are entitled to an appeal, as a matter of right. However,
sometimes a party is not able to appeal as a matter of right. In these instances, the party may
only appeal by filing a writ of certiorari. If a court grants the writ of certiorari, then that court
will hear that case.

The Legacy of The Regulating Act was carried further by the constitution makers through the
provision of Article 226 and 32 and its writ jurisdiction in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo-warranto. Our judicial system commands that
there is supremacy of law in country and no one is above whether its government or its organ
everyone have to be accountable towards the judiciary therefore this shows that our judicial
system is independent of any other influences.

Thus the Merits of the establishment of the Supreme Court in the country includes –
1. Derives its authority from crown
2. Civil and criminal jurisdiction
3. Rules now require approval from King in Council
4. Court fees was regulated
5. Empower to appoint advocates
6. Writ power
7. Enabled judiciary to control executive.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ACT TO THE INDIAN LEGAL HISTORY.

1. This enactment is considered to be a Landmark Enactment as it brought a lot of significant

changes and dynamised the structure of judiciary in the country. 
2. The act brought changes some important changes in  the Constitution of Court of
Directors (COD)
3. For the first time, the political and administrative functions of the company were
recognized. They were held accountable and responsible for their actions.
4. This act also laid down the foundation of the Central Administration in the country. It
stated the importance of having a Supreme authority that will act as a moral and a legal
watchdog over the subordinate authorities and officials.

15
5. This act created for the first time the Supreme Court at Calcutta thereby, making a proper
judicial system and Judiciary got regulated to an extent. For the first time learned judges
from England were made part of the Supreme Court in India. Supreme Court went on to
accommodate the various ideas and components from the British era and has shaped itself
to become what it is now.
6. The importance of Anti- Corruption measures so as to restrain the government officials
and those holding power to indulge in such activities was realised through the said act.
7. The inefficiency, ineffectiveness and incompetent face of the Dual Government system
introduced by the then Governor Robert Clive was clearly evident and a basis for the
future leaders to avoid such governing was established.

CONSTITUTIONAL IMPORTANCE OF THE ACT.

Despite these glaring defects, the Regulating Act was of great constitutional importance. It
constituted a great landmark in the constitutional history of India because of following
reasons:
 For the first time, it was recognized that the East India Company was not a mere
commercial body. The Act made it crystal clear that it was a Political Organization whose
functions also were political in nature. 
 It was the first of a series of parliamentary enactments which brought the control of Indian
affairs in the hands of the Parliament.
 The Act is deemed as significant because it was the first measure of its kind which
allowed a European government to assume the responsibility for governing territories
outside Europe. Such an attempt was not made by any other European nation so far. 
 The Act put an end to scandalous misrule and corruption which was prevalent amongst the
servants of the Company. No person in the Indian service was henceforth allowed to fill
his coffers with alluring presents of the natives or amass huge fortunes. Even the
Governor-General, his Council or the judges of the Supreme Court were prevented from
succumbing to such temptations.
 It was the Act of 1773 that for the first time, the British nation, as a nation, assumed the
actual responsibility of the government of the territories won by the servants of the trading
corporation. There was a gradual growth of feeling that the Britishers through their
Parliament should be responsible for the British rule in India.

16
As in the words of Prof. Keith -“The act altered the constitution of the Company at home,
changed the structure of the Company in India, subjected in some degree the whole of
territories to some supreme control in India, and provided in a very efficient manner for the
supervision of the Company by the Ministry.

17