HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR REFORM

In Bombay and Madras, the judicial system established by George III’s Charter of 1753 persisted longer than in Calcutta. The rapid growth in population, trade, and complexity of legal issues exposed the inadequacies of the existing civil and criminal courts, particularly the Mayors’ Courts, which were overwhelmed by increasingly technical cases.

The Governor and Council in each presidency town served as the Criminal Court of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery but they were laymen with limited understanding of criminal law. This led to a strong demand for trained legal professionals as judges to ensure effective justice administration. In response, the British Parliament enacted reforms in 1797, allowing the Crown to replace these outdated judicial bodies with the establishment of Recorders’ Courts.

THE RECORDERS’ COURTS: COMPOSITION AND JURISDICTION

Establishment and Structure

The Recorders’ Courts were established in each presidency town with a structure consisting of a Recorder, appointed by the Crown, the Mayor, and three Aldermen. The Recorder, a lawyer with at least five years of legal experience, presided over the court, which was authorized to function as a court of record with comprehensive civil, criminal, ecclesiastical, and admiralty jurisdiction. The authority of these courts, conferred through a Royal Charter under the 1797 Act (37 Geo. III Cap. 142), having the same powers as the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta.

Jurisdictional Reach and Limitations

The Recorder’s Court held jurisdiction over:

• British subjects residing in the presidency and territories of allied native rulers.
• Company employees or those in service to the Crown.

However, the Recorder’s Court faced restrictions similar to those imposed on the Calcutta Supreme Court by the Act of Settlement of 1781. The court lacked authority over revenue matters, could not intervene against the Governor and Council in official capacities, and could not exercise jurisdiction over individuals solely for land-related matters.

Court of Requests and Expanded Jurisdiction

In addition to the Recorder’s Court, the Act of 1797 enhanced the jurisdiction of Courts of Requests, established under the 1753 Charter, in Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay. Initially limited to petty civil suits valued at up to five pagodas, their jurisdiction was expanded to cases up to eighty rupees, thus providing accessible legal recourse for minor civil disputes in presidency towns.

RECORDER’S COURT VERSUS MAYOR’S COURT: KEY DIFFERENCES

The Recorder’s Court improved upon the Mayor’s Court in several crucial aspects:

• Professional Oversight: Unlike the Mayor’s Court, composed of lay judges, the Recorder’s Court included a legally qualified Recorder, ensuring better handling of complex legal issues.
• Dual Jurisdiction: The Recorder’s Court handled both civil and criminal matters, whereas the Mayor’s Court had only civil jurisdiction.
• Direct Appeals: Appeals from the Recorder’s Court went directly to the King in Council for cases above 1000 pagodas, unlike the Mayor’s Court, which required intermediate appeals to the Governor and Council.
• Broader Scope: The Recorder’s Court could hear suits involving presidency town residents without the restrictions imposed on the Mayor’s Court, which could only handle native cases if both parties consented.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SUPREME COURTS AT MADRAS AND BOMBAY

Supreme Court at Madras

The Madras Recorder’s Court was short-lived. In 1800, British Parliament passed legislation authorizing the Crown to replace it with a Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Madras, established by the Letters Patent issued on December 26, 1801, exercised civil, criminal, ecclesiastical, and admiralty jurisdiction, similar to the Supreme Court at Calcutta.

Supreme Court at Bombay

The Bombay Recorder’s Court lasted longer but was replaced in 1823 when the British Parliament enacted legislation authorizing the establishment of a Supreme Court. Letters Patent on December 8, 1823, formally constituted the Supreme Court at Bombay, giving it the same powers as the Supreme Court at Calcutta.

The Act of 1823 (17th section) ensured that both the Supreme Courts of Madras and Bombay held equivalent powers, authority, and jurisdiction as the Supreme Court at Calcutta. This establishment resulted in uniformity across the three presidencies by the early 19th century.

JURISDICTIONAL CONFLICT IN BOMBAY: THE HABEAS CORPUS CASES

Shortly after its establishment, the Supreme Court of Bombay clashed with the government over its jurisdictional limits. This conflict mirrored earlier disputes in Bengal (1774-79), where the court issued writs of habeas corpus to individuals outside Bombay’s immediate jurisdiction.

Notable Cases:

• Moro Raghonath Case (1828): A boy detained by his grandfather in Poona was brought before the Supreme Court via a writ of habeas corpus. The government challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the involved parties, being natives and residing in Poona, fell outside the court’s reach. Nevertheless, the court proceeded, overruling this objection.
• Bappoo Gunness Case: Bappoo, imprisoned by the Adalat Court of Concan for embezzlement, was also subject to a writ from the Supreme Court, which Bombay’s Governor and Council subsequently ignored.

This defiance led the Supreme Court to suspend its functions temporarily in protest until the government affirmed its authority. Sir Peter Grant, the sole surviving judge, petitioned the Privy Council, which eventually ruled that the Supreme Court had improperly issued the writs, thereby reinforcing the limited jurisdiction of the court regarding native detainees and actions by native courts.

SUPREME COURTS’ JURISDICTION AND ADMINISTERED LAWS

The Supreme Courts in Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay operated with five distinct jurisdictions:

1. Civil Jurisdiction: Applied to British subjects and inhabitants of presidency towns, excluding native landowners.
2. Criminal Jurisdiction: Extended over British subjects, presidency town inhabitants, Company employees, and those bound by contract.
3. Equity Jurisdiction: Handled cases where equity laws supplemented statutory laws.
4. Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: Covered matters of personal and religious status, particularly for British subjects.
5. Admiralty Jurisdiction: Addressed crimes committed at sea, with a mandate from the 1813 Charter Act.

The law administered by these courts comprised seven main categories:

1. Common Law: The English common law as it existed in 1726, barring later alterations, governed many general matters.
2. Statute Law of 1726: Applied except where specific statutes extended to India or were altered by Indian legislative acts.
3. Later English Statutes: Enacted statutes that explicitly extended to India post-1726 were applicable.
4. Civil Law (Ecclesiastical and Admiralty): Governed issues within ecclesiastical and admiralty jurisdiction.
5. Regulatory Enactments: Included regulations made by Indian legislative bodies, such as the Governor General in Council.
6. Hindu Law: Governed cases involving inheritance, succession, and contracts between Hindus.
7. Mohammedan Law: Applied to similar matters when involving Muslims.

This multifaceted system required the Supreme Courts to apply multiple legal codes, depending on the case’s nature and the parties involved, thus posing significant administrative challenges. The complexity of this system led to gradual codification efforts aimed at standardizing and simplifying legal proceedings.