CREATION OF AN ADDITIONAL SADAR DIWANI ADALAT

• Problem of Centralization:

• • The sole Sadar Diwani Adalat for Bengal Presidency was located in Calcutta, making it inaccessible to inhabitants of far-off provinces like Agra.
  • Litigants from remote regions faced delays, excessive travel costs, and health risks due to harsh climates, resulting in a de facto denial of justice.

• Reform Introduced:

• • Regulation VI of 1831 established a second Sadar Diwani Adalat and Sadar Nizamat Adalat at Allahabad from January 1, 1832.
  • These courts had jurisdiction over the Western Provinces, including Banaras, Meerut, Saharanpore, Muzaffarnagar, and Bulandshahar.

• Impact:

• • Facilitated access to justice for residents of North-Western Provinces.
  • Reduced the backlog of cases and expedited appellate procedures.
  • Enhanced administrative control over the civil and criminal judiciary in remote areas.

RE-ORGANIZATION OF CRIMINAL JUDICATURE

• Challenges in Existing System:

• • Cornwallis’ reforms of 1790-1793 created Provincial Courts of Appeal and Circuit, which proved inefficient over 40 years.
  • Delays in trials due to semi-annual sessions; long pre-trial detentions led to public grievances.
  • Witnesses and prosecutors were often held in inconvenient conditions for extended periods.

• Bentinck’s Solution:

• • Regulation I of 1829:
    • Abolished Provincial Courts of Appeal and Circuit.
    • Introduced Commissioners of Revenue and Circuit for smaller divisions, improving judicial oversight and reducing delays.
    • Directed quarterly gaol deliveries to ensure regular trials.
  • Magistrates’ powers were expanded to include sentences of up to two years with hard labor (Regulation VI of 1829).

• Significance:

• • Reduced the duration of pre-trial detentions.
  • Enhanced supervision of police and revenue officers.
  • Transitioned from a cumbersome appellate system to streamlined, localized judicial administration.

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURTS: EVOLUTION AND LEGACY

• Introduction:

• • Sessions work initially handled by Commissioners of Revenue and Circuit under Regulation I of 1829.
  • Overburdening of Commissioners led to transferring sessions duties to Zilla or City Diwani Judges (Regulation VII of 1831).

• Role:

• • Zilla Judges (later termed District and Sessions Judges) handled civil and criminal matters.
  • Sessions courts ensured monthly gaol deliveries, addressing the backlog of cases.

• Impact:

• • The dual jurisdiction system persists today as District and Sessions Courts.
  • Marked the establishment of the modern judiciary structure in India.

UNION OF COLLECTOR AND MAGISTRATE FUNCTIONS

• Initial Integration (1831):

• • Collectors were given magisterial powers to consolidate administrative efficiency.
  • Combined revenue and judicial functions, leading to a conflict of interest.

• Criticism:

• • Collectors became judges in cases involving their revenue collection, raising issues of impartiality.
  • Judicial duties were neglected due to the administrative workload.

• Reforms:

• • 1837: Offices of Collector and Magistrate were separated under Lord Auckland’s directive.
  • 1859: Reunified due to administrative needs but led to inefficiency.
  • Modern concerns emphasize the need for separating judicial and executive functions for fair governance.

REFORMS IN CIVIL JUDICATURE

• Exclusion of Natives under Cornwallis:

• • Cornwallis’ policies excluded Indians from significant roles in administration and judiciary.
  • Native officers (Munsiffs) were limited to adjudicating cases worth up to ₹50 and were unpaid.

• Consequences:

• • System inefficiency due to lack of personnel familiar with local languages and customs.
  • Rising delays and costs in judicial proceedings.

• Bentinck’s Reforms (1831):

• • Regulation V of 1831:
    • Empowered Munsiffs to handle cases worth up to ₹300.
    • Introduced Sadar Ameens and Principal Sadar Ameens, with expanded jurisdictions of ₹1,000 and ₹5,000, respectively.
    • Principal Sadar Ameens could handle cases without monetary limits after Act XXV of 1837.
    • Opened judicial positions to Indians regardless of religion or caste.

• Impact:

• • Streamlined judicial processes, reduced case backlogs, and increased cost-efficiency.
  • Boosted native participation in administration and justice.

ABOLITION OF PROVINCIAL COURTS OF APPEAL

• Background:

• • Once prestigious, these courts became inefficient over time due to poor staffing and lack of judicial talent.
  • Attracted less capable officials, reducing their credibility.

• Reform:

• • Regulation V of 1831:
    • Transferred their jurisdiction to Zilla and City Diwani Judges.
    • Gradual abolition district by district.
  • Complete abolition formalized through later regulations by 1833.

• Outcome:

• • Simplified the appellate system and improved judicial efficiency.

JURY SYSTEM UNDER BENTINCK

• Introduction:

• • Regulation VI of 1832 enabled European judges to involve respectable natives in civil trials.

• Modes of Involvement:

• • Panchayats: Panels conducted inquiries and submitted reports.
  • Assessors: Assisted judges in questioning witnesses and observing trials.
  • Juries: Rendered advisory verdicts after observing trial proceedings.

• Limitations:

• • Decision-making powers remained with the presiding judges.
  • Lacked widespread implementation.

REVENUE JUDICATURE AND DIWANI ADALATS

• Cornwallis’ Reforms (1793):

• • Diwani Adalats were made responsible for all revenue disputes.
  • Collectors were restricted to revenue collection without judicial powers.

• Reversal:

• • Over time, Collectors regained judicial powers for summary revenue cases (Regulations VII of 1799, VIII of 1831).
  • Act X of 1859 transferred all revenue disputes to Collectors, barring Civil Courts’ jurisdiction.

• Criticism:

• • Collectors lacked judicial training, leading to inefficient adjudication.
  • 1869: Civil Courts regained jurisdiction over revenue disputes under Act III.
  • Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 created a dual system, splitting jurisdiction between Revenue Officers and Civil Courts.

CHARTER ACT OF 1833

• Key Provision (Section 87):

• • Declared all individuals eligible for government offices regardless of religion, caste, or descent.
  • Pioneering step toward inclusivity in administration.

• Significance:

• • Affirmed the progressive policies of Bentinck in promoting native representation in governance.

LEGACY AND IMPACT OF BENTINCK’S REFORMS

• Judicial Reforms:

• • Decentralized judiciary by creating accessible courts in remote areas.
  • Reduced systemic delays and improved access to justice for the common man.

• Native Participation:

• • Expanded native representation in judicial and administrative roles.
  • Enhanced efficiency and reduced costs through native judicial officers.

• Criticism and Limitations:

• • Overlapping judicial and revenue functions in Collectors led to inefficiencies.
  • Persistent colonial bias hindered full empowerment of Indian judges.

• Modern Relevance:

• • Established foundational principles of decentralization and inclusivity.
  • Structures like District and Sessions Courts and Civil Courts continue to operate within frameworks laid by these reforms.