ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ADALAT SYSTEM IN MADRAS (1802)

• Introduction of the System: The East India Company established a judicial system in Madras following the annexation of territories around the presidency. Governor Lord Clive implemented the system in 1802, modeled on the Bengal system of 1793.
• Separation of Powers:
  • Offices of Judge, Magistrate, and Revenue Collector were separated to prevent conflicts of interest.
  • Regulation II of 1802: Introduced Diwani Adalats (Civil Courts) in each district to handle civil and revenue disputes.
• Jurisdiction of Collectors and Officials:
  • Collectors and other executive officers were subject to Diwani Adalats’ jurisdiction for acts conflicting with regulations.

STRUCTURE OF CIVIL COURTS IN MADRAS (1802)

1. Zilla Courts (District Civil Courts):

1. • Presided over by a Judge, assisted by Native Law Officers.
   • Jurisdiction over civil and revenue disputes under Rs. 1,000.
   • Appeals:
     • Below Rs. 1,000: Zilla Court decisions were final.
     • Above Rs. 1,000: Appeals could be filed in the Provincial Courts of Appeal.

2. Provincial Courts of Appeal:

1. • Four courts were established.
   • Jurisdiction extended to disputes up to Rs. 5,000.
   • Appeals above Rs. 5,000 lay to the Sadar Diwani Adalat.

3. Sadar Diwani Adalat:

1. • Highest civil court in Madras.
   • Composed of the Governor and members of the Council.
   • Jurisdiction extended to disputes exceeding Rs. 45,000, appeals from which could be taken to the Governor-General in Council.

4. Village-Level Courts:

1. • Regulation XVI (1802): Native Commissioners handled cases below Rs. 80, with appeals to Zilla Judges.
   • Regulation XII (1802): Zilla Judges could delegate disputes under Rs. 200 to their Registers.

STRUCTURE OF CRIMINAL COURTS IN MADRAS (1802)

1. Magistrates:

1. • Appointed for maintaining law and order.
   • Authority to punish petty offenses such as abuse, theft, or assault with fines up to Rs. 200, corporal punishment, or imprisonment.

2. Courts of Circuit:

1. • Tried cases of serious crimes or misdemeanors.
   • Judges conducted half-yearly jail deliveries.
   • Capital punishments required confirmation by the Fozdary Adalat.

3. Fozdary Adalat (Chief Criminal Court):

1. • Located in Fort St. George, Madras.
   • Composed of the Governor and Council members.
   • Final authority on all capital sentences and criminal appeals.

4. Law Application in Criminal Cases:

1. • Mohammedan Law applied in criminal matters, modified by local regulations.
   • Civil cases were governed by Hindu or Mohammedan Law depending on the religion of the disputing parties, with justice, equity, and good conscience prevailing in other cases.

CHANGES AND REFORMS IN JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION POST-1802

Reforms in Civil Judiciary

• Expansion of Sadar Diwani Adalat:

• • Regulation IV (1806): Two puisne Judges added for efficiency.
  • Regulation III (1807): Governor ceased acting as Chief Judge; a Council member was designated for the role.

• Assistant Judges:

• • Regulation VII (1809): Introduced to reduce delays.
  • Empowered Native Commissioners and Zilla Judges to handle disputes up to Rs. 200 and Rs. 25, respectively.

• Village Munsiffs and Panchayats:

• • Regulation IV and V (1816): Created local dispute resolution mechanisms.
  • Village Munsiffs decided cases below Rs. 10 (final decisions) and disputes up to Rs. 100 with mutual consent.
  • Panchayats resolved civil disputes without pecuniary limits.

Reforms in Criminal Judiciary

• Transfer of Magistracy (1816):

• • Magistrates’ powers transferred from Judges to Collectors.
  • Zilla Judges handled minor offenses while Circuit Courts dealt with serious crimes.

• Abolition of Circuit Courts (1843):

• • Functions transferred to Zilla Judges, designated as Sessions Judges under Act VII of 1843.

KEY INSTITUTIONS CREATED IN 1816

1. Munsiffs (Village-Level Judges):

1. • Jurisdiction over minor disputes, extended up to Rs. 200 by Regulation VI of 1816.
   • Assisted in resolving local disputes swiftly.

2. Sadar Ameens:

1. • Empowered to handle disputes up to Rs. 300, with appeals lying to Zilla Judges.

3. Village Panchayats:

1. • Ad hoc councils for dispute resolution; number of members ranged from 5 to 11.
   • Decisions final if mutually agreed upon by disputants.

MAJOR JUDICIAL REFORMS LEADING TO MODERNIZATION

1. Provincial Courts Abolished:

1. • Act VII of 1843: Provincial Courts of Appeal were dissolved, streamlining judicial processes.

2. Enhanced Role of Principal Sadar Ameens:

1. • Regulation III (1825): Expanded their jurisdiction to Rs. 5,000.
   • Played a crucial role in reducing backlog in higher courts.

3. Introduction of Legislative Oversight:

1. • Indian Legislative Council reorganized the system in 1873, forming the basis of modern Madras judiciary.

NON-REGULATION PROVINCES VS. REGULATION PROVINCES

1. Regulation Provinces:

1. • Governed by comprehensive legal codes.
   • Clear separation of executive and judicial functions.

2. Non-Regulation Provinces:

1. • Administered under executive orders.
   • Judicial and executive powers concentrated in District Officers.

3. Transition to Regulation System:

1. • By the 1860s, public opinion demanded integration of Non-Regulation Provinces into a unified judicial framework.
   • Example: Punjab Courts Act, 1865, and Central Provinces Act, 1865.

LEGACY OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN MADRAS

• Strengthened Local Judiciary:
  • Empowered native institutions like Village Munsiffs and Panchayats, establishing grassroots justice.
• Foundation for Modern Judiciary:
  • Separation of powers, codification of laws, and local participation influenced contemporary judicial systems in India.
• Influence on British Legal Frameworks:
  • Lessons from Madras and other presidencies shaped colonial policies in governance and law.