ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN MADRAS: INDIAN LEGAL HISTORY

EARLY PERIOD (1639-1666): FOUNDATION AND INITIAL ADMINISTRATION

Establishment of Madras (1639): Madras was founded by Francis Day, who acquired land from a local Hindu chief, creating Fort St. George as a fortified settlement for the English East India Company.
Structure of Madras: The settlement was divided into two areas: “White Town,” occupied by Europeans and Company officials, and “Black Town,” inhabited primarily by Indians.
Early Administration: Initially, the settlement operated under an “Agent” and Council who managed both commercial and minor administrative functions, with judicial functions being primitive and unsystematic.
Judicial Duality: Two separate judicial bodies emerged—an informal Agent and Council for Europeans in White Town, and the indigenous Choultry Court led by the village headman (Adigar) in Black Town, handling local Indian disputes and minor criminal cases.

Agent and Council’s Judicial Role: The Agent and Council held vague judicial powers to address civil and criminal matters for Europeans, often deferring complex cases to England.
Reference to Indigenous Justice: In significant criminal matters involving Indians, like a 1642 murder case, the Company relied on the local Raja’s directive to apply English law, illustrating the undeveloped judicial system.

Choultry Court’s Role: Operating under the village headman, the Choultry Court managed petty civil disputes and local regulatory functions like property registrations, maintaining traditional judicial customs.
Limitations: This court was limited in handling serious criminal matters, leading the Company to rely on the Raja’s support for enforcement in such cases.

New Privileges by Charles II: The Charter of 1661 empowered the East India Company to appoint Governors and Councils with judicial authority to govern all inhabitants under English laws, including Indians, thus extending jurisdiction over all residents.
Judicial Authority Granted: The Governor and Council received expansive powers to handle civil and criminal cases without limitations on punishments, including capital cases.
Lack of Separation Between Executive and Judiciary: This period marked an overlap of executive and judicial powers, as the same body handled both functions.
Impact on Indian Residents: Applying English law uniformly created a disadvantage for Indians, who had to navigate unfamiliar legal principles without recognition of their own customs and laws.

Agency to Presidency Transition: The incident involving Mrs. Ascentia Dawes in 1665 led to the promotion of Madras from an agency to a Presidency, empowering the President and Council with judicial authority per the 1661 Charter.
Judicial Limitations and Needs: The President and Council, lacking legal training, struggled with complex cases, highlighting the need for a qualified legal adviser, though none was appointed at this time.

Governance Reforms by Streynsham Master (1678): As Governor, Streynsham Master enforced regular judicial proceedings, instituting the “High Court of Judicature” to meet twice weekly, with cases tried by a 12-member jury.
Reorganized Choultry Court: The Choultry Court, handling minor cases up to 50 pagodas, was restructured under three English Company officials, cementing a hierarchy of justice within the settlement.
Judicial Hierarchy and Appeals: A clearer distinction arose between the High Court and the Choultry Court, establishing a two-tier judicial system where appeals from the Choultry Court could go to the Governor and Council.

Judicial Empowerment: The Charter of 1683 authorized the creation of Admiralty Courts to address piracy and unauthorized trade violations on the high seas and within Company limits.
Composition and Jurisdiction: Each Admiralty Court was to consist of one legally trained person and two merchants, hearing maritime and mercantile disputes, with powers to enforce forfeitures and seizures.
Admiralty Court’s Expanded Role (1686): The Admiralty Court, initially focused on maritime cases, began handling general civil and criminal matters, effectively replacing the President and Council as the primary court in Madras.

Foundation by the Company: The Company’s Charter of 1687 established the Mayor’s Court as part of the “Corporation of Madras,” a body aimed at municipal governance and judiciary functions.
Composition and Roles: The Corporation included a Mayor, twelve Aldermen, and Burgesses, creating a diversified representation of the town’s various communities, with three English Company members among the Aldermen.
Jurisdiction and Appeals: The Mayor’s Court could hear all civil and criminal cases, imposing fines, imprisonment, and corporal punishments, with appeals on serious cases directed to the Admiralty Court.
Recorder’s Role: Sir John Biggs, an English lawyer, served as Recorder for the Mayor’s Court, providing legal guidance in the otherwise lay judge-run court.

Choultry Court’s Reduced Jurisdiction: Following the establishment of the Mayor’s Court, the Choultry Court’s authority limited to minor civil and criminal matters, effectively becoming a small claims and petty criminal court.

Governance After Sir Biggs’ Death (1689): The Governor and Council temporarily assumed the roles in the Admiralty Court with assistance from local merchants to bridge linguistic and cultural gaps.
Appointment of John Dolben (1692): Dolben, an English judge, presided over the Admiralty Court until 1704 when his return to England led to the discontinuation of the Admiralty Court’s independent functioning.
Return to Governor and Council Authority: With the cessation of the Admiralty Court, judicial powers reverted to the Governor and Council until the Mayor’s Court, established by a Royal Charter in 1727, ushered in a new phase in Madras’s judicial history.