RESTRICTIONS ON APPEALS TO THE SADAR DIWANI ADALAT

Initial Framework Under the Regulations of 1793

• Appeals from Provincial Courts of Appeal (PCA) to the Sadar Diwani Adalat (SDA) were unrestricted for cases exceeding ₹1,000 in value.
• This created a significant workload for the SDA, leading to delays in justice.

1797 Restriction

• Under Sir John Shore, Regulation imposed:
  • Appeals in personal property cases restricted to matters above ₹5,000.
  • Real property cases remained appealable to the SDA if the value exceeded ₹1,000.

Regulation V of 1798 (Lord Wellesley’s Administration)

• Extended the ₹5,000 limitation to real property cases.
• Provincial Court decisions became final if subject matter value ≤ ₹5,000.
• Appeals to the SDA allowed only for cases exceeding this limit, regardless of property type.

Impact

• Reduced the number of appeals but failed to eliminate delays in the SDA.
• Marked a shift toward empowering Provincial Courts as final arbiters in lower-value disputes.

RESTRUCTURING THE SADAR ADALAT: REGULATION III OF 1801

Previous Composition

• Governor-General and Council, assisted by Head Kazi and two Muftis, managed the SDA.
• This arrangement caused delays due to competing executive and legislative responsibilities of the Governor-General and Council.

Rationale for Reform

• Lord Wellesley’s Despatch to the Court of Directors (1800):
  • Highlighted inefficiency and the need for separation of judicial and executive powers.
  • Urged appointment of specialized judges to focus exclusively on judicial matters.

Key Provisions of Regulation III of 1801

1. Judicial Appointments:
   • SDA and Sadar Nizamat Adalat (SNA) were to be presided over by three judges.
   • Chief Judge to be a Council member, excluding the Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief.
   • Two judges selected from experienced civil servants with judicial experience.
2. Judicial Independence:
   • SDA and SNA separated from legislative and executive authority.
   • Judges given sole responsibility for judicial administration, ensuring impartiality.

Significance

• Marked a milestone in the separation of powers in British India.
• Strengthened the rule of law by enhancing the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

EXTENDING THE ADALAT SYSTEM TO CEDED AND CONQUERED PROVINCES

Ceded Provinces of Oudh (1801)

• By Treaty of 1801, Nawab Vizier ceded parts of Oudh to the East India Company.
• Bengal Regulations of 1793 were extended to these areas in 1803.

Administrative Changes

• Seven Districts Established:

• • Moradabad, Bareilly, Etawah, Farrukhabad, Kanpur, Allahabad, and Gorakhpur.
  • Each district had a Diwani Adalat for civil and revenue cases.

• Appellate Structure:

• • Provincial Court of Appeal established at Bareilly.
  • SDA jurisdiction extended to the ceded provinces.

• Judicial Officers:

• • Munsiffs, Sadar Ameens, and Registers introduced for the first level of adjudication.
  • Native officers like Sadar Ameens handled minor disputes, making justice accessible to locals.

Significance

• Expanded British judicial systems to newly acquired territories.
• Enhanced legal uniformity across British-administered regions.

IMPROVEMENTS IN CIVIL JUDICATURE UNDER WELLESLEY

Introduction of Assistant Judges (1803)

• Temporary appointments made to address case backlogs.
• Assisted Diwani Judges in reducing pending suits, especially in districts with high case volumes.

Enhanced Jurisdiction for Registrars

• Increased authority to decide cases up to ₹500 (from ₹200).
• Appeals against Registrars’ decisions lay with the Diwani Adalat.

Introduction of Sadar Ameens

• Empowered to handle cases up to ₹100.
• Operated at district headquarters for better access to justice.

Reforms for Munsiffs

• Continued Cornwallis-era institution of Munsiffs with jurisdiction over cases up to ₹50.
• Expanded eligibility for appointment beyond zamindars to qualified individuals from diverse backgrounds.

LORD HASTINGS’ JUDICIAL REFORMS (1814)

Regulation XXIII of 1814

1. Increased Number of Munsiffs and Sadar Ameens:

1. • To address delays, districts had multiple Munsiffs.
   • Jurisdiction limits increased:
     • Munsiffs: ₹64.
     • Sadar Ameens: ₹150.

2. Provincial Control:

1. • Appointment and oversight of Munsiffs and Sadar Ameens transferred to Provincial Courts.

Regulation XXIV of 1814

1. Streamlined Appeals:

1. • Diwani Adalats limited to cases ≤ ₹5,000.
   • Provincial Courts heard cases above ₹5,000 as the court of first instance.

2. Expanded Role of Registrars:

1. • Authorized to decide cases exceeding ₹500 under certain conditions.
   • Appeals in such cases directed to Provincial Courts.

3. Simplified Appeal Process:

1. • One appeal permitted in most cases.
   • Cases above ₹50,000 allowed appeals to the Privy Council under the Act of Settlement.

LORD AMHERST’S CONTRIBUTIONS (1823–1827)

Enhancing the Role of Sadar Ameens

• Regulation XIII of 1824:
  • Sadar Ameens became salaried officers, ensuring accountability and motivation.
• 1827 Expansion:
  • Granted jurisdiction over special cases up to ₹1,000.
  • Positioned at major district headquarters for effective dispute resolution.

Impact

• Utilization of Sadar Ameens increased significantly.
• Played a crucial role in reducing pendency in civil cases.

CHANGES IN CRIMINAL JUDICATURE

Issues in Cornwallis’ System

1. Magistrates Overburdened:

1. • Combined roles of Judge and Magistrate led to inefficiencies.
   • Delayed investigations and prolonged pretrial detentions.

2. Circuit Court Inefficiencies:

1. • Delayed trials due to infrequent sessions.
   • Accumulated cases overwhelmed Circuit Courts.

Reforms Under Hastings

• Magistrates Empowered:
  • Regulation XII of 1818 authorized Magistrates to impose two-year sentences for specific offenses.
• Introduction of Native Criminal Judges (1821):
  • Hindu and Muslim law officers, along with Sadar Ameens, empowered to try petty criminal cases.
  • Reduced dependency on Circuit Courts and ensured quicker trials.

INTRODUCTION OF COLLECTOR-MAGISTRATES (1821)

Rationale

• Regulation IV of 1821 allowed Collectors to exercise magisterial powers.
• Aimed to expedite revenue collection and justice delivery in rural areas.

Significance

• Marked a departure from Cornwallis’ principle of separating revenue and judicial functions.
• Positioned Collectors as the primary authority in districts.

JUDICIAL HIERARCHY BY 1827

Officer/Court	Jurisdiction	Appeals To
Munsiffs	₹64	Diwani Adalat
Sadar Ameens	₹150 (₹1,000 in special cases)	Diwani Adalat
Registrars	₹500	Diwani Adalat
Diwani Adalat	₹5,000	Provincial Court of Appeal
Provincial Court	₹5,000+	Sadar Diwani Adalat
Sadar Diwani Adalat	Appeals from Provincial Court; ₹50,000+ (original jurisdiction)	Privy Council (if ₹50,000+)

CRITICISM OF THE ADALAT SYSTEM

1. Persistent Delays:

1. • Despite reforms, courts remained overwhelmed with cases.
   • Long pretrial detentions and delays in final adjudications persisted.

2. Lack of Native Judges:

1. • Limited participation of Indians in higher judiciary undermined efficiency.
   • Absence of cultural understanding led to flawed judgments.

3. Overburdening of Officials:

1. • Magistrates struggled to manage dual roles, impacting efficiency in criminal and civil adjudication.

4. Limited Accessibility:
   • Higher courts located in distant urban centers made justice inaccessible for rural litigants.