ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MAYOR’S COURT AND THE JUDICIAL CHARTER OF 1726

• The Mayor’s Court in India was established under a Charter granted by King George I in 1726. This Charter initiated significant changes in the judicial system of the British East India Company’s presidencies at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, marking the beginning of Crown Courts in India.
• Known as the “Judicial Charter,” this charter aimed to create a uniform judicial system to cater to the administrative and legal needs of growing British settlements.
• Reasons for the Grant of the Charter:
  • The judicial system in the presidencies was unsatisfactory due to the rapid population, trade, and commerce growth.
  • The Company needed powers to administer justice in civil cases and punish crimes more efficiently, thus benefiting the governance and prosperity of settlements.
  • There was also a need to establish a competent court to manage the estates of deceased English residents in India to avoid litigation in England.

KEY PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER OF 1726

1. Formation of Corporations and Mayor’s Courts:

1. • The Charter established a Corporation in each presidency town, consisting of a Mayor and nine Aldermen.
   • Seven Aldermen had to be English citizens, while two could be from friendly states.
   • The Mayor’s Court, formed by the Mayor and Aldermen, was given jurisdiction over civil matters and testaments of deceased English persons.

2. Tenure and Appointments:

1. • The Mayor served for one year, while Aldermen held office for life or residence in town.
   • New Mayors were elected annually from the Aldermen, and any vacancies among Aldermen were filled by the remaining members.

3. Judicial and Administrative Authority:

1. • Each presidency’s Governor and Council oversaw the court but could only remove an Alderman for misconduct.
   • The Governor and Council also had criminal jurisdiction and could try serious offenses except high treason, with powers resembling English courts like “Oyer and Terminer.”

JURISDICTION AND APPEALS

• The Mayor’s Court had civil jurisdiction over cases within the town and its factories, and it could grant probate and administration rights for English wills.
• Appeals from the Mayor’s Court went to the Governor and Council, and further appeals in cases involving more than 1000 pagodas (a currency unit) could be taken to the King in Council in England.
• However, the Mayor’s Court had no criminal jurisdiction; such powers were vested in the Governor and Council.

LEGISLATIVE POWERS UNDER THE CHARTER

• Prior to 1726, legislative powers lay with the Company’s directors in England. The Charter gave limited legislative powers to the Governor and Council, enabling them to create local by-laws for the good governance of the presidencies, subject to the Company’s approval.
• This change allowed local governance to be more responsive to the conditions in India, although laws and penalties had to align with English law.

COMPARISON WITH THE MADRAS CHARTER OF 1687

• The Mayor’s Court under the 1726 Charter differed significantly from the Madras Charter of 1687:
  • The new Mayor’s Court had only civil jurisdiction, whereas the Madras Court dealt with both civil and criminal cases.
  • The Mayor’s Court of 1726 was a Crown Court, while the Madras Court was purely a Company creation.
  • Appeals from the Mayor’s Court could go up to the King in Council, while appeals from the old Madras Court went to the Admiralty Court.

CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING THE MAYOR’S COURT: 1726-1753

1. Conflicts with Executive Authority:

1. • The Mayor’s Court sought to maintain judicial independence, leading to conflicts with the presidency government, which sought to control its functioning.
   • Disputes arose over cases involving religious matters and caste-related issues, as seen in a notable case in Bombay in 1730 where the Court asserted its jurisdiction over caste disputes, sparking opposition from the Governor.

2. Tensions Between English Law and Local Customs:

1. • The Mayor’s Court administered English law, often disregarding local customs. The Company’s stance was that Indians were free to settle their disputes outside the Mayor’s Court. However, if they brought a dispute to the Court, English law would apply.

THE CHARTER OF 1753 AND ADJUSTMENTS TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

• Following the French capture of Madras and other governance challenges, the Charter of 1753 restructured the judiciary to balance autonomy with executive oversight.
• Changes Introduced:
  • Appointment and Control of Officials: The Governor and Council now had the authority to select the Mayor from a nominated panel and appoint all Aldermen, reducing the Corporation’s independence.
  • Jurisdiction Over Natives: The new Charter restricted the Mayor’s Court’s jurisdiction over cases involving natives unless both parties voluntarily submitted the case to the Court.
  • Court of Requests: This new Court handled cases up to five pagodas, providing a forum for small claims, which offered speedy, inexpensive justice to poorer litigants.

STRUCTURE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM UNDER THE 1753 CHARTER

CRITIQUE AND SHORTCOMINGS OF THE MAYOR’S COURT SYSTEM (1726–1753)

1. Dependence on the Company’s Officials:

1. • Mayor’s Courts were filled with Company servants who were beholden to the Governor and Council, compromising impartiality, particularly in cases involving the Company.
   • Court officials often lacked legal training and applied English law without proper guidance or legal resources.

2. Inadequate Safeguards for Indian Litigants:

1. • The system didn’t accommodate Indian customs or laws, making it unsuitable for local disputes. In Bombay, the Court ignored jurisdictional restrictions, asserting control over all cases as natives were technically British subjects.
   • At Madras, natives struggled to access justice, leading to calls for an independent native court.

3. Lack of Separation Between Executive and Judiciary:

1. • The Governor and Council’s influence over judicial appointments and their role in criminal cases created conflicts of interest, reducing the courts’ effectiveness as a neutral arbiter.

4. Complex and Slow Appeals Process:

1. • Although appeals were theoretically allowed to the King in Council, costs and delays made this impractical. The lack of a competent appellate court locally weakened the justice system’s credibility.

SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SUPREME COURTS

• In 1773, following a critical review by the British Parliament, the Regulating Act mandated a Supreme Court of Judicature to replace the Mayor’s Court at Calcutta.
• The Supreme Court comprised qualified English judges, independent of the Company’s influence, aiming for fairer administration.
• This marked a substantial move towards a structured judicial system with an independent judiciary, though Bombay and Madras continued with the Mayor’s Courts until their eventual replacement with Supreme Courts.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MAYOR’S COURTS IN INDIAN LEGAL EVOLUTION

• Despite their limitations, the Mayor’s Courts laid the groundwork for more advanced judicial institutions in India.
• The experience underscored the need for an independent judiciary and fair procedures, helping shape the later legal framework and establishing key legal principles for future courts in colonial India.