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

Post a Comment

Followers

Popular posts from this blog

Privileges and Immunities to Administration in Suits

Introduction You know government can enter into contracts. Government can start some business. It mean government can sue other people, or you can sue the government. Before you initiate a legal proceedings against government, or even after legal proceedings are initiated, there are some relaxations to government.( OK, we will use Government/Administration as per our discretion interchangeably in this post, but they will mean the same ). So, it might happen that to prove something you may need a document or evidence, but government may be given exemption to produce evidence in that regard. Let's take one example.  General law is that burden of proof is on prosecution. Meaning, the one who accuses other  needs to prove the crime/offence by other. But when government accuses you of Sedition, you have to prove your innocence, burden of proof is on YOU. This is scary, as many times government in power just accuses people of sedition who opposes their ideas/policies, and put oppone...
Read more

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

Image
Story About Bombay In 1534, Portuguese acquired Bombay from Local Hindu Raja. Then Bombay was given to King Charles II as dowry in his sister's marriage to in 1661. In 1668 Bombay was given to rent to East India Company for a rent of 10  £ . By today's exchange it would be around 100 Rs. So  yes, Bombay was given on rent to East India Company for the price of 10 Vada-Pav. Administration of Bombay was subordinate to Surat back then. After renting it, company issued a charter in 1668 granting company some rights to make laws to deal with Bombay. Like Administration in Madras, development of Earlier administration could be studied in 3 stages. First Stage: 1670-1683 (Aungier Eara) During this period Bombay was subordinated to Surat. The Governor of Surat was ex-officio Governor of Bombay, though Bombay had Deputy Governor and Council. Gerald Aungier brought some changes in Administration of justice. Two plans, i.e plan of 1670 and plan of 1672 made progress in so...
Read more

Overview of Appeal in CrPC

Image
Introduction Here is the simplistic hierarchy of the Courts. (JMFC stands for Judicial Magistrate of First Class) Not so serious cases are tackled by Lower courts. Serious cases are tackled by Sessions court.  We humans are not Gods. Courts are presided by humans and its possible that they can make a mistake. They should be remedy to people when courts commits  mistake. One of such remedy is Appeals. Remember this one, you don't have right of Appeal in all the cases even if you feel Court had committed some mistake. Criminal Procedure Code gives a right to appeal in specific circumstance.  CrPC provides circumstance when you CANNOT appeal. Apart from CrPC, constitution also have certain provisions related to Appeal. Specific laws like NIA Act, UAPA Act etc have provided separate procedure of Appeal.   In this post we will cover below things When you CANNOT appeal ? Who can appeal and for What purpose ? Appeals to Sessions Court Appeals to High Court Appeals to Suprem...
Read more