UNSATISFACTORY STATE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

The Patna Cause highlighted serious issues in the Company’s courts in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. The six Provincial Councils, which managed both revenue collection and justice administration since 1774, prioritized revenue over justice. English members of these councils were unfamiliar with local laws, language, and customs, relying mainly on native law officers to handle judicial functions. This system failed to provide effective justice, prompting calls for reforms.

JUDICIAL SCHEME OF 1780

In 1780, Governor-General Warren Hastings initiated a reorganization of the Adalat System:

1. Establishment of Diwani Adalats: Six Diwani Adalats were set up in Calcutta, Murshidabad, Burdwan, Dacca, Purnea, and Patna, each under an English Superintendent. These courts handled civil matters, marking a shift from previous councils’ revenue and judicial mix.
2. Exclusive Revenue Function for Provincial Councils: The Provincial Councils retained revenue collection functions, removing judicial responsibilities. This separation was a significant shift towards establishing independent judicial entities.
3. Jurisdiction and Procedures: Diwani Adalats focused on civil cases like inheritance, property, and contracts. Minor cases under ₹100 could be assigned to local officers. The Superintendent pledged to impartially uphold justice, and each court maintained detailed records. Local law, i.e., Koran for Muslims and Shaster for Hindus, governed personal matters, with native officers assisting in legal interpretations.
4. Appeals and Court Fees: Cases below ₹1,000 were resolved at the Diwani Adalat level, while higher-value disputes could be appealed to the Sadar Diwani Adalat in Calcutta. For the first time, court fees were introduced, with varying scales from 2% to 5% based on case value.

MERITS AND DRAWBACKS OF THE 1780 JUDICIAL SCHEME

The 1780 Scheme separated judiciary and executive roles for the first time, allowing Diwani Adalats to focus solely on judicial functions. However, only six courts across vast territories in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa were inadequate. This limited accessibility and forced people to travel far distances for justice. Though minor cases could be assigned to local officers, people still needed to visit divisional headquarters initially, posing further inconvenience.

Additionally, the unpaid zemindars who handled minor cases had a risk of bias, raising concerns about justice fairness. Moreover, each Diwani Adalat’s wide jurisdiction strained superintendents, causing delays and reduced efficiency.

IMPEY’S ROLE AND THE SADAR DIWANI ADALAT (1780)

In 1780, Hastings appointed Sir Elijah Impey, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at Fort William, as the sole Judge of the Sadar Diwani Adalat. Impey’s legal background promised efficiency and oversight, given that the Governor-General and Council, previously responsible, had other duties and little legal expertise. Impey aimed to supervise lower courts effectively, a responsibility requiring legal knowledge and dedication.

Impey’s dual role connected the Sadar Diwani Adalat with the Supreme Court, creating a liaison between Bengal’s two judicial systems, previously independent and often conflicting. This appointment, though beneficial for unifying judicial authority, led to his recall, as critics in England saw this dual role as compromising judicial independence, interpreting his additional salary as a potential conflict of interest. Consequently, Impey was recalled to England in 1782, and the Sadar Diwani Adalat reverted to the Governor-General and Council.

SCHEME OF 1781

In 1781, Impey introduced reforms to address the issues of the 1780 scheme:

1. Increased Number of Courts: The number of Diwani Adalats expanded from six to eighteen to reduce territorial burdens and improve justice access. The separation of judicial and revenue functions continued, with courts barred from handling revenue matters.
2. Minor Disputes: Like the 1780 scheme, cases under ₹100 could be referred to local officers, who reported their decisions to the Diwani Adalat Judge. This local arbitration aimed to reduce travel burdens for minor disputes, though the effectiveness was still limited.
3. Legal Provisions: Hindu and Muslim laws continued to apply in cases of inheritance, marriage, caste, and religious practices. Impey’s regulations, however, filled previous gaps, establishing “justice, equity, and good conscience” as guiding principles for cases outside traditional law.
4. Procedural Guidelines: A standardized procedure promoted fair, timely justice. Impey’s reforms emphasized that judges, not native officers, should decide case facts. Native law officers, such as Kazis and Pandits, advised only on law interpretation, safeguarding judicial independence.

REFORM OF SADAR DIWANI ADALAT FUNCTIONS

The 1781 regulations clarified the Sadar Diwani Adalat’s roles:

• Appellate: Hearing appeals from Diwani Adalats in cases exceeding ₹1,000.
• Original: Trying special cases referred by the Governor-General and Council.
• Control and Supervision: Exercising oversight of lower courts, including addressing complaints against Diwani Adalat judges and monitoring misconduct.

REFORMS IN CRIMINAL JUDICATURE

Initially, criminal justice was under the Sadar Nizamat Adalat in Calcutta, managed by a Muslim Judge with support from native law officers. However, fearing intervention from the Supreme Court, the Sadar Nizamat Adalat was relocated to Murshidabad in 1775, managed by Naib Nawab Mohd. Reza Khan. Unfortunately, Reza Khan’s weak oversight led to corruption, abuse, and a lack of accountability, creating a chaotic justice system where guilty parties often evaded punishment.

To address these issues, Hastings introduced several reforms in 1781:

1. Appointment of Magistrates: Judges of Diwani Adalats were appointed as magistrates to apprehend criminals, transferring suspects to the nearest criminal court for trial. Magistrates could only arrest and charge suspects, not conduct trials themselves, promoting law enforcement without judicial overreach.
2. Criminal Justice Department: Hastings established a new department in Calcutta to oversee criminal courts, ensuring regular reporting on arrests, charges, and case outcomes. Each Fozdary Court submitted monthly reports to track and control criminal justice administration.
3. Remembrancer of Criminal Courts: A Company officer in Calcutta oversaw reports from criminal courts, summarizing data for analysis. However, this oversight was limited, relying solely on reports, which could easily be manipulated, limiting the effectiveness of criminal justice reforms.

These reforms laid the foundation for later developments in Bengal’s judicial system, despite limitations. The reorganization attempted to separate revenue and judicial functions, expand court access, and establish an oversight mechanism for criminal justice. However, significant shortcomings, including limited court numbers, insufficient remuneration for zemindars, and inconsistent oversight, persisted. This situation continued until Lord Cornwallis introduced a comprehensive criminal justice reform in 1790.