Indian Legal History- Charter of 1753

Charter of 1753


Earlier Charter of 1726 introduced some improvement like bringing uniformity in presidency town, some ostensible judicial independence, still it fall short of few things. One of them was Judiciary and Governor (And Council) conflicts over jurisdiction. Judiciary used to interpret Charter of 1726 in it’s favour, and executive in their’s. Charter of 1753 brought some improvements.


Appointment

Earlier Appointment of Mayor was by election by Aldermen, and appointment of Aldermen was done by Mayor.
Under this charter Governor and Council were given more power. Mayor was to be appointed by them. Panel of two prominent names were to be submitted by Corporation, out of which Governor and council would select one.

Clarity over jurisidiction
Earlier there were conflict in all the presidency town over jurisdiction of Judiciary and Executive. Many a time judiciary used to interfere in religious matter and sometime encroach upon executive subject. This was done away in 1726 Charter.
In this it was expressly mentioned that matter of natives could not be taken up by judiciary unless both the parties gives consent to it

Court of request
To expand the access of justice, this charter provided for establishment of Court of Request. 
It would consist of Commissioners and around 20 Company’s servant.
These courts had Quorum of 3 Commissioners.
Court had jurisdiction over matter up to 5 pagodas(15 Rupees).

Other Things
  • Natives were left free to settle their matter according to their own customs
  • Suits against company could be filed
  • Suit against mayor and Aldermen could also be filed.
  • Some amount had to be deposited for civil suites


Hierarchy 


Summary



Kaye, In his book History of Administration of East Indian Company wrote
These courts were composed of the Company’s mercantile servants, emtn of the slanderest legal attainment and the slightest judicial training. They were controlled by executivess and justices was administered in very arbitrary manner. The Natives of India, knew nothing of English Law, were hanged for the commission of acts which they believed to be justificable in the eyes of both God and Man.”

This little above para sums up entire Charter of 1752. Below conclusions can be drawn

The Bads.
  • Exectutives were given excessive control
  • Layman were appointed as judges
  • Natives were handed injustice by applying English Law without their knowledge
  • We have to study this for Law exams :(


The Goods
  • Access made to poor people in Court of request
  • Some clarity over jurisdiction
  • ?



Just food for thought. Executives (Prime minister, Cabinet), Judiciary, Legislature (Parliament) and Media are in general piller of the democracy.
What is good for democracy ? When above pillers keep checks over each another and have reasoned fight ? Or when they colluded with each other ? Please post your view in comments. 
In 1753 Charter Judicial independence was done away with.


Thanks


Source-Kailash Rai and Other books.




Comments

Followers

Popular posts from this blog

Privileges and Immunities to Administration in Suits

Legal History-Administration of Justice in Bombay (1668-1726)

Civil Procedure Code - Summoning and attendance of Witness (Order 16)