EVOLUTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE ADALAT SYSTEM

• Originated under Warren Hastings with Diwani Adalats for civil cases and Faujdari Adalats for criminal matters.
• Reformed significantly in 1793 by Lord Cornwallis, introducing impartiality, accessibility, and a structured hierarchy of courts.
• Shore inherited the system as Governor General in 1793, with an objective to implement and refine Cornwallis’ framework.

KEY FEATURES OF THE CORNWALLIS JUDICIAL SYSTEM (1793)

1. Structure of Courts:

1. • Diwani Adalats for civil cases in each district.
   • Provincial Courts of Appeal as intermediate appellate bodies.
   • Sadar Diwani Adalat as the highest court, overseen by the Governor General and Council.

2. No Court Fees:

1. • Cornwallis abolished court fees to promote accessibility and reduce financial barriers for litigants.

3. Elimination of Dual Functions:

1. • Separation of judicial and revenue functions.
   • Judges dedicated solely to judicial duties, with no involvement in revenue collection.

4. Appeals System:

1. • Multiple levels of appeals ensured thorough review, though this contributed to delays.

5. Issues Arising:

1. • Overburdened courts due to high litigation volume.
   • Revenue disputes added to Diwani Adalats’ workload, creating delays.

SHORTCOMINGS IN CORNWALLIS’ JUDICIAL SYSTEM

1. Case Backlog:

1. • Excessive delays in resolving cases.
   • For example, the Burdwan Diwani Adalat had over 30,000 pending cases in 1795, requiring over eight years to resolve even if no new cases were added.

2. Revenue and Justice Disparities:

1. • Zemindars lacked mechanisms for speedy rent recovery from tenants.
   • Government used expedient methods like selling lands of defaulters, while landlords relied on slow judicial processes.

3. Insufficient Courts:

1. • Only 26 Diwani Adalats for Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.
   • The limited infrastructure could not accommodate the growing litigation.

SIR JOHN SHORE’S REFORMS TO ADDRESS CHALLENGES

Regulation VIII of 1794

To reduce the backlog, Regulation VIII introduced:

1. Expanded Role for Registrars:

1. • Empowered Registrars to try and decide suits involving amounts up to Rs. 200.
   • This freed Judges of Diwani Adalats to focus on significant cases.

2. Limits on Appeals:

1. • Registrar decisions for cases below Rs. 25 became final unless deemed erroneous by the Judge.

3. Collector Involvement in Revenue Cases:

1. • Revenue disputes requiring account scrutiny were referred to Collectors, relieving Judges of intricate account reviews.
   • Judges retained authority to accept, alter, or reject Collectors’ reports.

Limitations of 1794 Reforms

• The process of validating Registrars’ decisions still required Judges’ counter-signatures, defeating the purpose of delegation.
• Government’s assumption that backlog issues were temporary proved incorrect.

Regulation XXXVI of 1795

This regulation aimed to further streamline judicial processes:

1. Revised Appeals from Registrars:

1. • Appeals from Registrar decisions (cases up to Rs. 200) were directed to Diwani Adalats instead of Provincial Courts of Appeal.
   • Reduced workload for Provincial Courts, allowing them to handle significant matters.

2. Simplified Appeals from Munsiffs:

1. • Decisions by Munsiffs (Indian officers handling cases up to Rs. 50) were appealable only to Diwani Adalats.
   • Eliminated a second level of appeal to Provincial Courts, expediting final resolution.

Re-Imposition of Court Fees (1795)

1. Reason for Re-Introduction:

1. • To curb frivolous litigation and reduce case volumes.
   • Based on the assumption that low costs encouraged unnecessary suits.

2. Sliding Fee Structure:

1. • Fees ranged from 1 anna per rupee for small suits to a fraction of a percent for larger amounts.
   • Appeals and document submissions also incurred fees.

3. Criticism:

1. • Dismissal of many genuine cases due to inability to pay fees.
   • Disadvantaged poorer litigants, while wealthier individuals misused the system.

4. Impact:

1. • Large numbers of pending cases were dismissed.
   • Judicial processes became expensive, restricting access to justice.

Regulation V of 1797: Heavier Fee Impositions

1. Rationale:

1. • Aimed at discouraging unnecessary litigation and bolstering government revenue.
   • Fees on exhibits, witness summons, and intermediate petitions were increased.

2. Impact on Litigants:

1. • Poor litigants abandoned claims due to prohibitive costs.
   • Cases were decided based on financial capability rather than merit.

3. Criticism:

1. • Judges and officials, including the Judge of Midnapore, highlighted the injustice to impoverished suitors.
   • Rich litigants exploited the system to suppress weaker opponents.

Restriction of Appeals to Sadar Diwani Adalat (1797)

To address delays in the highest court, Regulation XII of 1797 introduced:

1. Monetary Thresholds for Appeals:

1. • Appeals from Provincial Courts to the Sadar Diwani Adalat were limited to:
     • Property disputes exceeding Rs. 1,000.
     • Other cases exceeding Rs. 5,000.

2. Purpose:

1. • Allowed the Sadar Court to focus on significant cases and reduce delays in smaller disputes.

Extension of the Adalat System to Banaras (1795)

Shore extended Cornwallis’ judicial model to Banaras, enacting 15 regulations:

1. Judicial Structure:

1. • Diwani Adalats were established in Banaras, Mirzapur, Gazipur, and Jaunpur.
   • A Provincial Court of Appeal at Banaras heard appeals from these courts.
   • The Sadar Diwani Adalat at Calcutta served as the final appellate authority.

2. Special Privileges for Brahmins:

1. • Brahmins were exempt from capital punishment, reflecting respect for Hindu traditions.

3. Criminal Justice:

1. • Diwani Adalat Judges acted as Magistrates.
   • Provincial Court of Appeal served as the Court of Circuit for criminal cases.

APPRAISAL OF SHORE’S REFORMS

1. Positives:

1. • Simplified appeals process and empowered Registrars.
   • Reduced caseloads in higher courts.

2. Negatives:

1. • Re-introduction of court fees undermined Cornwallis’ principle of free justice.
   • Poor litigants faced significant barriers to accessing courts.
   • Reluctance to expand judicial infrastructure perpetuated systemic inefficiencies.

LEGACY OF THE ADALAT SYSTEM

• Shore’s modifications reflected financial constraints but prioritized efficiency over accessibility.
• The Second Law Commission (1856) criticized court fees, advocating their abolition to uphold Cornwallis’ vision.

The Adalat system laid a structured foundation for British Indian judiciary, evolving further in subsequent decades.