BENGAL UNDER COMPANY RULE: BACKGROUND AND EMERGENCE OF THE SUPREME COURT

Bengal experienced profound anarchy after the Battle of Plassey in 1756, which shifted real power to the British East India Company. Although this granted vast control over Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, the Company avoided direct governance. Instead, it maintained nominal rule through a puppet Nawab, who failed to establish order, leaving Bengal practically ungoverned. This lack of accountability among Company officials led to widespread exploitation, corruption, and severe economic consequences, including the Bengal Famine of 1770.

The British public, alarmed by famine reports and the Company’s corrupt practices, pushed for reform. Consequently, the British Parliament passed the Regulating Act of 1773 to impose order on the Company’s administration in India. This Act led to establishing the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Calcutta as a corrective judicial institution.

PROVISIONS AND STRUCTURE OF THE REGULATING ACT, 1773

The Regulating Act sought to overhaul the Company’s administration by modifying its constitution and establishing a centralized judiciary. Key provisions included:

1. Modification of the Company’s Constitution: Aimed at maintaining continuity, only a quarter of the Company’s directors would retire annually, with each director holding office for four years. Shareholder voting rights were also restricted, favoring those with higher share capital.
2. Reorganization of Bengal Governance: A Governor-General, with a Council of four, assumed control over Bengal’s civil and military administration. Warren Hastings became the first Governor-General. Council decisions required a majority, and while the Governor-General held a casting vote in case of ties, he had no veto power.
3. Subordinate Governance: The presidencies of Bombay and Madras were placed under the Calcutta administration in military and political matters.

ESTABLISHMENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

The Regulating Act’s most transformative provision was creating the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William, which replaced the ineffective Mayor’s Court. The Supreme Court had:

• Composition: A Chief Justice and three Puisne Judges, all appointed by the Crown.
• Jurisdiction: The Court could decide both civil and criminal cases, including Admiralty and Ecclesiastical matters, and could convene Grand and Petty Juries for trials.
• Scope of Authority: The Court’s jurisdiction extended to all British subjects, Company employees, and cases involving British subjects in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.

This Court was intended to function as a check against abuses by Company officials, providing recourse for Indian subjects against exploitation.

JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS AND CONTROVERSIES

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction was broad yet selectively applied, sparking ambiguities and tensions:

• Limitations by Status and Location: While Calcutta was seen as British territory, Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa were theoretically under the Mughal Emperor’s sovereignty, with the Company acting as the Diwan. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over Company employees and British subjects in these regions was seen as contradictory since these areas were not formally British.
• Dispute Over Jurisdictional Authority: Unclear definitions of “British subjects” and “His Majesty’s subjects” led to conflicting interpretations, as each term implied different obligations to British law. The Company’s administration opposed subjecting its employees’ actions, especially those related to revenue collection, to the Court’s jurisdiction.

KEY JUDICIAL CONFLICTS AND LANDMARK CASES

The establishment of the Supreme Court led to jurisdictional disputes with the Governor-General’s administration, marked by several high-profile cases that illustrated the complexities and challenges within the judicial structure.

1. The Trial of Raja Nand Kumar (1775)

Raja Nand Kumar, a prominent Indian official, accused Governor-General Warren Hastings of corruption. Shortly after, he was tried by the Supreme Court for forgery, found guilty under the 1728 Forgery Act, and sentenced to death. This case highlighted significant issues:

• Use of English Law: The court applied the Forgery Act, which had never been formally promulgated in Bengal.
• Judicial Bias Allegations: Historians, including Macaulay, argued that Chief Justice Elijah Impey was biased in favor of Hastings, reflecting the perceived collusion between the executive and judicial branches.

This case severely damaged the Court’s reputation among Indians, as Nand Kumar was the first Indian executed by a British court.

2. The Patna Cause (1777–79)

Involving a property dispute between Bahadur Beg and his aunt, Nadirah Begum, this case exposed systemic flaws in the Company’s provincial courts. When Begum, dissatisfied with the local court’s decision, sued the Company’s officials in the Supreme Court, it revealed:

• Inadequate Native Judicial Procedures: Native law officers, often handling evidence informally, did not meet British standards of judicial rigor, making them liable under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny.
• Conflict Over Judicial Autonomy: The Court ruled against the provincial officials, awarding substantial damages to Begum. This judgment outraged the Company, questioning the Supreme Court’s authority over Company officials in judicial roles.

3. The Cossijurah Case (1779)

In this case, the zemindar (landholder) of Cossijurah defaulted on a debt and was summoned by the Supreme Court. The Governor-General’s Council advised him to ignore the writ, challenging the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over landholders and initiating a direct conflict between judicial and executive powers. The case emphasized:

• Sovereign Rights in Revenue Matters: The government argued that landholders were beyond the Court’s reach unless explicitly in Company service.
• Executive Overreach: The Council’s refusal to allow the Court’s writ indicated the ongoing tension over jurisdictional boundaries.

LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION: THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT, 1781

To resolve these conflicts, Parliament passed the Act of Settlement, 1781, which clarified jurisdictional boundaries and provided safeguards for Indian subjects:

1. Immunity for Government Officials: The Act exempted the Governor-General, Council members, and Company officials from the Court’s jurisdiction for actions within their official capacity, effectively placing government revenue collection beyond judicial review.
2. Restriction on Jurisdiction Over Indians: The Court’s jurisdiction was limited, with landholders, revenue farmers, and Company employees exempted from civil cases unless under contract with a British subject.
3. Recognition of Indigenous Laws: The Act emphasized that inheritance, family law, and contract cases among Hindus and Muslims would follow their personal laws, establishing that these matters lay beyond English law’s purview.
4. Recognition of the Company’s Judicial System: The Act formally acknowledged the Sadar Diwani Adalat as a higher appellate court, strengthening the Company’s provincial courts’ status and reducing the Supreme Court’s interference in local judiciary matters.

SIGNIFICANCE AND LEGACY OF THE SUPREME COURT AT FORT WILLIAM

The Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William, despite its controversies, introduced foundational judicial principles, including the rule of law and judicial independence in India. Its existence foreshadowed later reforms, including:

• Integration of Common Law and Equity: The Court functioned with combined common law and equity powers, predating the unified judicial system in England established by the Judicature Act of 1873.
• Evolution Toward a High Court System: The Court served as a model for later High Courts established in Bombay and Madras. In 1861, the High Courts Act merged the Supreme Court and Sadar Adalat into a unified judiciary.

This two-tiered judicial structure, separating presidency town jurisdiction from mofussil courts, influenced India’s legal landscape, ultimately fostering a more accessible and uniform system with the creation of High Courts. The Supreme Court of Fort William’s legacy persists as a milestone in establishing legal authority and judicial reform within India’s colonial legal history.