INTRODUCTION

• Racial Discrimination in the Judicial System refers to unequal treatment based on race, often institutionalized in law or practice.
• Under British India, judicial systems were structured to favor British subjects, creating dual legal standards for Indians and Europeans.
• Racial biases permeated both civil and criminal justice systems, significantly disadvantaging Indian natives.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF JUDICIAL INEQUALITY

Initial Structure of British Courts

• British subjects were originally exempt from the jurisdiction of Company’s Courts. This ensured that British nationals faced trials only under the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta.
• In Madras and Bombay, British subjects were under His Majesty’s Courts at the presidencies.
• These provisions were enforced through the Regulating Act, 1773, which institutionalized racial privileges in judiciary systems.

Role of Cornwallis Reforms

• Cornwallis prohibited British subjects from residing outside Calcutta unless they submitted to Diwani Adalat jurisdiction (cases up to ₹500). Beyond this, the Supreme Court handled cases.
• Similar models were adopted under:
  • Regulation XVIII of 1802 in Madras.
  • Regulation III of 1799 in Bombay.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN CIVIL JUSTICE

The Charter Act of 1813

• Section 107 mandated that British subjects were answerable to Company’s Courts but retained a privilege of appeal to His Majesty’s Courts.
• Indians had no such right, solidifying inequality.

Lord Hastings’ Reforms (1814)

• Restricted Munsiffs and Sadar Ameens from hearing cases involving British subjects, creating a racially segregated judiciary.
• This policy exacerbated the divide, making lower courts accessible only to Indian litigants.

The Regulation IV of 1827

• Sadar Ameens gained limited authority to hear cases involving Europeans. However, this reform was reversed in 1831 under Lord William Bentinck, reintroducing strict racial segregation.

Charter Act of 1833 and Macaulay’s Reforms

• Thomas Macaulay, the first Law Member of India, criticized racial distinctions in justice, advocating equal civil rights for Indians and Europeans.
• Macaulay sought to:
  • Abolish the right of direct appeal for British subjects to Supreme Courts.
  • Ensure uniformity in judicial treatment regardless of race.
  • Avoid the “semblance of partiality” that privileged British residents.

Act XI of 1836 (“Black Act”)

• The Act removed the right of appeal for British subjects from Company’s Courts to His Majesty’s Courts.
• Jurisdiction was extended to all Company’s Courts, except for Munsiffs and Sadar Ameens.
• British subjects resisted, dubbing the legislation a “Black Act.” The government upheld the law, considering it equitable for Indian plaintiffs.

Elimination of Civil Discrimination (Post-1843)

• In 1843, Englishmen became amenable to all civil courts in Bengal, including Munsiffs.
• By 1850, Madras followed suit through Act III of 1850, ensuring no exemptions based on descent or place of birth in civil proceedings.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Early Privileges for British Subjects

• British residents were exempt from the jurisdiction of Company’s Criminal Courts. Instead, they were tried by Supreme Courts at presidencies.
• Cornwallis’ Criminal Reforms (1790) authorized Magistrates in mofussil regions to apprehend British offenders. Trials, however, remained exclusive to the Supreme Court.

Justices of the Peace (1793)

• Under 33 Geo. III, c. 52, Justices of the Peace, primarily British individuals, were empowered to investigate crimes by British subjects in mofussil areas.
• Indian Magistrates were restricted to assisting the Justices of the Peace, emphasizing their subordinate role.

Persistent Inequality in Criminal Trials

• Charter Act of 1813: Empowered Magistrates to fine British offenders up to ₹500 for minor crimes but left serious offenses under Supreme Court jurisdiction.
• Act IV of 1843: Removed certiorari rights for British subjects in criminal cases, aligning appellate rights with those available to Indians.
• Criminal Procedure Code of 1872: Continued racial distinctions, barring Indian judges in mofussil courts from trying European British subjects.

THE ILBERT BILL AND MIXED JURY SYSTEM

Ilbert Bill, 1884

• Proposed to empower Indian judges to try British offenders in mofussil areas.
• Fierce opposition from the British community led to a compromise: introduction of mixed juries, including both Indians and Europeans.
• This reform marked a significant step towards judicial equality but failed to eliminate racial biases entirely.

TOWARD JUDICIAL EQUALITY

Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 1923

• Abolished the exclusive right of British subjects to be tried by European judges.
• Indians gained the reciprocal right to demand a jury with a majority of Indian members.

The Criminal Law (Removal of Racial Discriminations) Act, 1949

• Post-independence, this act abolished all racial distinctions in judicial procedures.
• Ensured a uniform legal framework, erasing remnants of colonial judicial privilege.

KEY CASES AND DOCTRINAL ANALYSIS

Macaulay’s Argument on Equality (1833)

• Argued that distinctions based on race eroded public confidence in the judiciary.
• His principle: A just judiciary requires uniform treatment under law.

CASE LAWS REFLECTING DISCRIMINATION

1. Rex v. Ram Nandan (1794):

1. • Highlighted differential treatment between British and Indian defendants.
   • British subjects escaped local trials, whereas Indians faced immediate prosecution in mofussil courts.

2. Regulation VI, 1802 (Madras):

1. • Authorized Magistrates to apprehend British criminals but limited their trial jurisdiction.

LEGISLATIVE MILESTONES IN REMOVING DISCRIMINATION

Year	Legislation	Key Provisions
1793	33 Geo. III, c. 52	Introduced Justices of the Peace for British subjects in mofussil areas.
1813	Charter Act, 53 Geo. III, c. 155	Allowed limited penalties for British offenders under Magistrates’ jurisdiction.
1836	Act XI (“Black Act”)	Removed British subjects’ appellate privileges to His Majesty’s Courts.
1843	Act IV of Legislative Council	Standardized appellate procedures for both Indians and British subjects.
1872	Criminal Procedure Code	Prohibited Indian judges from trying British subjects in mofussil courts.
1923	Criminal Procedure Amendment Act	Abolished preferential trials for Europeans; established equality in judicial jurisdiction.
1949	Criminal Law (Removal of Discrimination)	Removed final traces of racial discrimination in judicial systems post-independence.

DOCTRINAL PRINCIPLES AND LEGAL MAXIMS

1. Principle of Equality Before Law:
   • Enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, influenced by Macaulay’s vision of uniform justice.
2. Justice Delayed is Justice Denied:

Excessive appeals to Supreme Courts by British subjects delayed resolution for Indian plaintiffs, violating equitable principles.