ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN CALCUTTA: INDIAN LEGAL HISTORY

BRITISH SETTLEMENT AT CALCUTTA

Calcutta’s foundation dates to 24th August 1690, when Job Charnock, an agent of the British East India Company, landed at Sutanati, situated on the Hooghly River’s banks.
The British constructed a fortified factory at Sutanati, naming it Fort William.
This factory marked the first major British establishment in the region, serving both as a trading post and a defense structure.

In 1698, the East India Company obtained the zemindary (landlord rights) for three villages—Calcutta, Sutanati, and Govindpur—from Prince Azim-ush-Shan, Aurangzeb’s grandson and the Subahdar of Bengal.
With this acquisition, the British had legal rights to administer the land under Mughal authority.
The consolidation of these villages formed the base for modern Calcutta, declared a Presidency in 1699, which provided for a President and Council to oversee administration.

Bengal’s zemindars had limited powers under the Mughal Empire, primarily tasked with collecting land revenue and maintaining local law and order.
Their authority did not extend to judicial functions in civil or criminal matters, with separate courts established for such cases.
However, with the decline of Mughal power, local courts ceased functioning, creating a judicial vacuum. Zemindars then assumed judicial functions, often favoring their interests.

The 1773 Committee of Secrecy, appointed by the British House of Commons, outlined the functioning of zemindar-administered justice in Bengal.
Each zemindar maintained a local Criminal Court, exercising jurisdiction over all criminal cases, including capital offenses, though capital sentences required confirmation from the Nawab’s government at Murshidabad.
Zemindars also established “Cutcheny” (civil courts) or “Adalat” courts for revenue-related disputes, with appeals allowed to the Nawab’s Court at Murshidabad.

The East India Company, as zemindar, exercised similar powers in Calcutta, appointing an English officer as “Collector” who held judicial powers.
The Collector acted as the zemindar in Calcutta, handling land revenue, law enforcement, and judicial functions within the settlement.
The Collector’s Fozdary Court handled criminal cases among natives, with a summary procedure, where sentences ranged from whipping, fines, road labor, imprisonment, banishment, and in capital cases, whipping to death, confirmed by the Governor or President.

The Collector maintained a civil court or cutcherry to resolve native civil disputes, usually through arbitration.
Civil disputes followed the prevailing customs, and in the absence of customs, the Collector’s discretion applied. Appeals were directed to the Governor and Council.

Revenue disputes fell under the Collector’s purview, who often employed corporal punishment to enforce tax compliance.
The Collector’s role combined judicial, executive, and fiscal functions, presenting a broad concentration of power rarely found in local zemindars.

The judicial framework in Calcutta bore similarities to Bengal’s zemindary systems but had unique elements that enhanced British autonomy.
Unlike Bengal’s zemindars, who needed Murshidabad’s confirmation for death sentences, Calcutta’s British officials executed such sentences with Governor and Council approval, bypassing the Nawab.
Appeals from the Collector’s Court in civil cases did not go to Murshidabad but only to the Governor and Council in Calcutta, emphasizing the British assertion of autonomy.

The British in Calcutta, from the outset, exercised judicial powers exceeding those typically held by Bengal’s zemindars, establishing a more autonomous governance structure.
The British asserted independence from local authority, reinforcing their governance and judicial power within their territories in Bengal.

The Collector’s Court adjudicated cases involving both natives and Englishmen, handling minor English offenses.
For major English crimes, the Governor and Council assumed jurisdiction under the Charter of 1661.
The judicial system in Calcutta remained rudimentary, with excessive power concentrated in the Collector, leading to a system of justice deemed inadequate for impartial and effective administration.

In 1727, a Mayor’s Court was introduced in Calcutta under the Charter of 1726, aligning Calcutta’s judicial framework with other British Presidencies.
This court derived authority from Royal Charters, marking a shift from zemindary-based justice to formalized British judicial structures in colonial India.