INTRODUCTION

The judicial reforms of Lord Cornwallis (Governor-General of India, 1786–1793) represent a landmark in the development of the Indian legal system. These reforms aimed to establish the Rule of Law, streamline judicial administration, and ensure justice for all, irrespective of status. Implemented in three phases—1787, 1790, and 1793—the measures primarily affected Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa but influenced the legal framework across British India.

Lord Cornwallis sought to eliminate the overlapping of judicial and executive powers while addressing corruption, inefficiencies, and delays in the judicial system. His reforms introduced concepts such as the separation of powers, checks and balances, and impartial judiciary, which became cornerstones of the Indian judicial structure.

JUDICIAL MEASURES OF 1787

1. Objectives:

1. • Achieve administrative economy by consolidating revenue and judicial functions.
   • Simplify the legal framework to reduce costs and improve efficiency.

2. Key Features:

1. • Reduction of Districts: Districts were reduced from 36 to 23 for better administration.
   • Centralization of Authority:
     • The Collector, an English officer, was given multiple roles as revenue collector, judge of Mofussil Diwani Adalat (civil court), and magistrate for criminal matters.
     • Collectors became the most powerful district officials, concentrating executive and judicial functions.
   • Mofussil Nizamat Adalat: Criminal cases were tried in the Nizamat Adalats with assistance from Kazis and Muftis.
   • Power Over Petty Offences: Magistrates could hear minor cases and impose limited punishments, such as:
     • Imprisonment for up to 15 days.
     • Corporal punishment of up to 15 strokes.

3. Appeals and Judicial Hierarchy:

1. • Revenue cases were appealed to the Board of Revenue, while civil cases exceeding ₹1,000 were heard by the Sadar Diwani Adalat.
   • Decisions of the Sadar Diwani Adalat were final unless the case exceeded £5,000, in which an appeal lay to the King-in-Council under the Act of Settlement, 1781.

4. Issues and Criticism:

1. • Concentration of Power: Combining judicial and executive powers in the Collector led to potential bias and misuse of authority.
   • Overburdened Magistrates: Delays and inefficiencies plagued the judicial system due to overlapping duties.
   • Miscarriage of Justice: Petty offenders often suffered excessively long pretrial detention due to procedural delays.

JUDICIAL MEASURES OF 1790

1. Objectives:

1. • Reform criminal justice administration.
   • Introduce Anglo-Mohammedan Law, a fusion of English and Islamic legal principles.
   • Remove inefficiencies and corruption in the system inherited from the Nawab’s administration.

2. Structural Reforms:

1. • End of Nawab’s Control: Criminal judiciary was removed from the Nawab’s shadowy sovereignty and placed under British-controlled courts.
   • Anglo-Mohammedan Law:
     • Muslim criminal law was retained but modified by the Governor-General in Council to align with British standards of justice.
   • Sadar Nizamat Adalat:
     • Relocated to Calcutta under the Governor-General and Council, assisted by Kazis and Muftis.
     • This court became the apex criminal court, replacing the Nawab’s control.

3. Circuit Courts:

1. • Introduced to replace Fozdary Adalats, Circuit Courts were mobile courts that traveled across four divisions: Calcutta, Murshidabad, Dacca, and Patna.
   • Composed of English civil servants as judges, assisted by native law officers (Kazis and Muftis).
   • Biannual gaol deliveries were held to ensure speedy trials and reduce overcrowding in jails.

4. Magistrates’ Role:

1. • Conducted preliminary inquiries and decided minor offences.
   • Referred major criminal cases to the Circuit Courts.

5. Impact:

1. • Enhanced supervision over criminal justice.
   • Reduced corruption and delays.
   • Improved the perception of fairness in criminal proceedings.

JUDICIAL MEASURES OF 1793

1. Objectives:

1. • Achieve complete separation of judiciary and executive powers.
   • Address inefficiencies and eliminate the influence of revenue collection on judicial decision-making.
   • Provide impartial and independent courts for civil and revenue disputes.

2. Separation of Powers:

1. • Collectors were stripped of all judicial powers, including revenue-related cases.
   • Judicial responsibilities were assigned to independent courts:
     • Diwani Adalats for civil and revenue cases.
     • Provincial Courts of Appeal for appellate jurisdiction.

3. Abolition of Mai Adalats:

1. • Revenue cases were transferred from Collectors to Diwani Adalats, ensuring impartiality.
   • Mai Adalats were abolished under Regulation II of 1793.

4. Judicial Hierarchy:

1. • District Diwani Adalats: Established in every district and major cities.
   • Provincial Courts of Appeal:
     • Four courts located in Patna, Dacca, Murshidabad, and Calcutta.
     • Functioned as intermediate appellate courts.
   • Sadar Diwani Adalat:
     • Highest civil court.
     • Heard appeals from Provincial Courts if the value exceeded ₹1,000.

5. Key Provisions:

1. • Codification of Laws:
     • Hindu and Muslim laws applied to personal matters.
     • Justice, equity, and good conscience applied in other cases.
   • Executive Accountability:
     • Collectors and government officers became answerable to courts for misconduct or breaches of regulations.
     • Regulation III of 1793 mandated their liability for compensation to affected parties.

6. Regulations of 1793:

1. • Regulation II: Abolished Mai Adalats and established independent courts for revenue disputes.
   • Regulation III: Empowered courts to scrutinize executive actions and provided remedies for violations.
   • Regulation V: Instituted Provincial Courts of Appeal.
   • Regulation VI: Streamlined procedures for the Sadar Diwani Adalat.

PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES

1. Rule of Law:

1. • Cornwallis introduced governance under written regulations, ending arbitrary rule.
   • Courts were empowered to review even the actions of government officials.

2. Checks and Balances:

1. • Judicial and executive functions were separated.
   • Appellate mechanisms ensured accountability and transparency.

3. Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience:

1. • In the absence of codified laws, decisions were made based on these principles.

4. Equality Before Law:

1. • Native inhabitants and British subjects were made subject to local courts for civil disputes under ₹500.

CRITICISM

1. Lack of Indian Representation:

1. • Indian judges and officers were excluded from positions of responsibility.
   • Native advisors (Kazis and Muftis) played only consultative roles.

2. Over-centralization:

1. • Dependence on English officials created delays and inefficiencies in remote areas.

3. High Administrative Costs:

1. • Judicial reforms significantly increased expenditure.

4. Limited Access for Natives:

1. • British residents could easily access justice, while natives faced challenges due to geographical and financial constraints.

The judicial reforms of Lord Cornwallis profoundly shaped the Indian legal system by establishing the principles of judicial independence, equality, and the separation of powers. However, the exclusion of Indian participation and over-reliance on English officials created structural challenges. These reforms laid the groundwork for a robust legal framework but remained a mixed legacy of efficiency and exclusion.