ARRIVAL OF BENTINCK AND THE ADALAT SYSTEM IN BENGAL: INDIAN LEGAL HISTORY

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.
Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp