ADALAT SYSTEM INTRODUCTION (1772-74)

Company’s Territorial Expansion and Administration Needs

The East India Company initially governed only three major settlements: Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. As the Company expanded its political reach, it acquired the provinces of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, necessitating an organized system of governance and justice. To administer justice effectively, the Company established the Adalat System in 1772. This system became the foundation for judicial reforms and gradually extended to new territories, creating a model that influenced the judicial administration in Bombay and Madras. Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa served as experimental grounds for these judicial experiments.

The Company’s Role as Diwan

Following the Battle of Plassey in 1757, the Company became the dominant power in Bengal. However, instead of direct governance, the Company placed Mir Jafar on the throne as a puppet ruler. Successive changes in the nawabship, from Mir Jafar to Mir Kasim and back, saw the Company’s influence growing. In 1765, Emperor Shah Alam II granted the Company the Diwani rights (revenue and civil justice authority) for Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa in exchange for an annual tribute. This grant solidified the Company’s power while leaving criminal justice theoretically under the Nawab’s jurisdiction.

EXECUTION OF DIWANI FUNCTIONS AND EARLY ISSUES

Delegation to Indian Officers

Initially, the Company appointed Mohammad Reza Khan in Murshidabad and Raja Shitab Roy in Patna to manage the Diwani duties. However, these officers and Company servants often exploited their positions for personal gain, leading to corruption, revenue decline, and a deteriorating socio-economic condition in Bengal. The inefficiency in administration prompted the Company, in 1772, to assume direct control over revenue collection and justice administration, under Governor Warren Hastings.

THE JUDICIAL PLAN OF 1772

Structure and Division of Authority

The Judicial Plan of 1772, designed by Warren Hastings, built on the Moghul administrative model, dividing authority between:

1. Nizamat (Criminal Jurisdiction): Held by the Nawab, responsible for law and order.
2. Diwani (Civil Jurisdiction): Controlled by the Company, overseeing revenue and civil justice.

Establishment of Mofussil Courts

• Mofussil Diwani Adalat: A district-level civil court presided over by an English Collector who judged civil matters related to property, inheritance, marriage, debt, and partnerships.
• Mofussil Nizamat or Fozdary Adalat: A district-level criminal court staffed by native law officers (Kazi or Mufti) and assisted by Moulvies who interpreted the Mohammedan criminal law. The Collector held supervisory authority over these courts but could not pass capital sentences, which were referred to the Sadar Nizamat Adalat in Calcutta.

Sadar Courts in Calcutta

• Sadar Diwani Adalat: An appellate civil court composed of the Governor and Council, hearing appeals from Mofussil Diwani Adalats for cases above Rs. 500.
• Sadar Nizamat Adalat: Supervised the criminal courts. An Indian Daroga presided over this court, assisted by chief Kazi and Mufti, but final authority rested with the Nawab, who signed execution warrants.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS IN THE 1772 PLAN

1. Minor Disputes: Disputes under Rs. 10 were decided locally by the Head Farmer, providing accessible justice for minor matters without requiring long travel to district courts.
2. Application of Religious Laws: The plan ensured that Muslim and Hindu religious laws governed inheritance, marriage, and caste matters for respective communities, with Moulvies or Pandits advising English judges on these laws.
3. Transparency and Fairness: The judicial system incorporated requirements for open courts, maintenance of records, and elimination of unjust fees, replaced with a moderate fee structure.

CRITIQUE AND THE JUDICIAL PLAN OF 1774

Deficiencies in the 1772 Plan

The 1772 system concentrated excessive power in the Collectors, who managed revenue, civil adjudication, and oversight of criminal courts. Given the slow communication of the era, there was limited oversight from Calcutta. This power concentration risked abuse, as Collectors often engaged in private trade, using their authority for personal profit. The Court of Directors recognized these issues and directed Warren Hastings to recall Collectors in 1774, necessitating a comprehensive judicial restructuring.

Introduction of Provincial Councils in 1774

The 1774 Judicial Plan restructured the administration:

• Division into Six Provinces: Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa were divided into six divisions with headquarters at Calcutta, Burdwan, Murshidabad, Dinajpur, Dacca, and Patna.
• Provincial Councils: These councils, comprised of four to five English officers, were responsible for revenue collection and civil appellate jurisdiction as Provincial Courts of Appeal.
• Appointment of Diwans (Indian Officers): Diwans replaced Collectors in districts, responsible for revenue collection and presiding over the Mofussil Diwani Adalat in their respective areas. Appeals from these courts went to the Provincial Council, which served as the appellate authority for cases below Rs. 1,000.

IMPACT OF THE ADALAT SYSTEM ON INDIAN LEGAL HISTORY

Foundations for Future Reforms

The Adalat System laid the groundwork for subsequent reforms and the establishment of a centralized judicial framework in British India. The concept of separation of powers—dividing civil and criminal jurisdictions—paved the way for a more structured and transparent system. The Judicial Plans of 1772 and 1774 highlighted the importance of justice accessibility, which later influenced the creation of High Courts and the codification of laws.

Hastings’ Reforms and Judicial Independence

The reforms introduced by Hastings underscored the need for judicial impartiality and effective oversight. His 1772 Judicial Plan, despite its flaws, was pivotal in transitioning the Indian judiciary towards a system with checks and balances, mitigating corruption, and fostering accountability in governance.

Development of Appellate Structures

The appellate structure established by the Sadar Diwani and Sadar Nizamat Adalats foreshadowed the hierarchical judicial system that evolved in British India, enhancing judicial review and promoting legal uniformity across regions. The Adalat System also set a precedent for applying religious laws, ensuring that indigenous customs and practices were respected in personal matters.

Legacy and Influence on Modern Indian Judiciary

The Adalat System’s emphasis on separate jurisdictions, appellate review, and religious law integration continued to influence India’s judicial framework post-independence. The legacy of these early reforms is visible in India’s current judiciary, with a similar structure of district courts, appellate courts, and High Courts that embody the principles of accessibility, transparency, and judicial oversight established during Warren Hastings’ tenure.