NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

HISTORY- II
FIFTH TRIMESTER.

REFORMATION OF INIDIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM UNDER

LORD CORNWALLIS

Submitted to:
Submitted By:
Prof. (Dr.) Uday Pratap Singh
Avanish Deshpande
Professor
2018BALLB55

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
On completion of this Project it is my present privilege to acknowledge our profound gratitude and
indebtedness towards my teachers for their valuable suggestions and constructive criticism. Their
precious guidance and unrelenting support kept me on the right track throughout the project. I
gratefully acknowledge my deepest sense of gratitude to:
Prof. (Dr.) V. Vijayakumar Director, National Law Institute University, Bhopal for providing us with
the infrastructure and the means to make project;
My History-I professor, Prof. (Dr.) Uday Pratap Singh, who provided me with this wonderful
opportunity and guided me throughout the project work;
I am also thankful to the library and computer staff of the University for helping me find and select
books from the University library.
Finally, I am thankful to my family members and friends for the affection and encouragement with
which doing this project became a pleasure.

Avanish Deshpande
(2018BALLB55)

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..............................................................................................2
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................4
SCHEME OF 1787.........................................................................................................5
SCHEME OF 1793.......................................................................................................14
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................20
BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................21

3
 INTRODUCTION

Lord Earl Cornwallis is known as the father of Indian judiciary. He was the third Governor-General
of India after Warren Hasting and John MacPherson. His Governorship extended from 1786 to 1793.
He was a British army officer and colonial administrator. He is best remembered as one of the
leading generals in the American War of Independence. Before coming to India British force led by
him surrendered to the combined American-French force at the siege of Yorktown. Despite this
defeat, he retained the confidence of successive British governments and continued to enjoy an
active career.
At that time British Administration was facing evils like bribery, corruption and the evils of private
trade and problems relating to land revenue. To tackle all these he introduced judicial reforms and
enforced new regulations for trading. He introduced reforms in judiciary thrice first in 1787, second
in 1790 and last in 1793 bringing revolutionary changes in Indian judiciary. Warren Hastings’s
departure from India was followed by the 20 months rule by John Macpherson, a senior member of
the council. After Macpherson in 1786 Lord Cornwallis was appointed Governor-General. Apart
from taking care of the administration Lord Cornwallis was also on military enterprise. He had to
face huge resistance from Tipu Sultan. This resulted in the Third Anglo-Mysore War. The war ended
with Tipu`s surrender of half of his kingdom to the British. 
He made remarkable changes in both civil and criminal judicial system. Changes introduced by him
in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa were later adopted in the presidency towns of Bombay and Madras. The
judicial system at the Presidency Towns was designed primarily to administer justice to the
Englishmen. But, with the passage of time, the Indian population of these settlements in increased
and, therefore, adjustments had to be made in the judicial system with a view to provide for the
administration of justice to these people as well.1

Lord Cornwallis laid down two conditions before he accepted the post of Governor-General. His first
condition was that the Governor-General would have power to override his council. Further, he said
that the office of Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief would be united under one person.
Both of his conditions were accepted and the Governor-General became the ruler of British India
under Board of Control and Court of Directors. Since then the Governor-General and Council turned
into Governor-General-in-Council and this position continued up to 1947.

1
. Jain.M.P. Outlines of Indian Legal &Constitutional History.Nagapur,1952,p.12

4
 SCHEME OF 1787

Pretext of the Scheme

In the judicial plan of 1781, Warren hasting made the provision of separate revenue and judicial
department. Things were in a better condition before Lord Hasting left India. But after his exit
demands were raised by the senior company servants to merge both department as it was earlier.
They argued that it was not advisable to keep both departments separate, as it was very costly to
maintain these two organizations separately.
A very senior civil servant, Sir John Shore, who later replaced Lord Cornwallis as Governor-
General, also advocated the same reunion of both departments. He even said in his argument that
Indians had always lived in an arbitrary and despotic government, and therefore the form of British
Government should be despotic, so that Indians remained in their earlier condition i.e. under
submission that are familiar and natural to them. He further argued that it was impossible to draw a
line between revenue collection and judicial administration. Many times such a condition occurred
that it was not possible to determine to which department a specific case belonged. An injunction
could be easily brought against the revenue collection by simply filling a case in an adalat.
There were many grounds on which company servants argued their merger, but the main reason
behind this was to make revenue collection effective by making collector as the judge. However, this
cannot be said as a positive step as the collector then again would become the absolute centre of
power and he would not hesitate in abusing his power. In April 1786, the Court of Directors granted
their demands and vested the judicial, revenue and magisterial functions in one person, Lord
Cornwallis. The Court of Director assumed that this step would be in consonance with Indian
customs and traditions and be more economical.

Outlines of the Scheme

As mentioned earlier the key goal of this scheme was to solidify the economy, yet Cornwallis went
other way and increased the salaries of collectors. He justified his step by decreasing the number of
districts from 36 to 23. He, through this scheme, introduced changes through two regulations. First
was related to the revenue administration and second was for the administration of justice.

Collector as revenue administrator: - In each district, a company’s servant was appointed as

collector. His work was to collect revenue and to decide all the cases relating directly or indirectly to

5
the revenue collection. For this purpose a separate court was established in each district for deciding
cases related to revenue collection called mal adalat. Appeals from mal adalat were to go firstly to
the Board of Revenue in Calcutta, and then finally to Governor-General-in-Council.

Collector as judge of civil court: - Collector was also to act as a judge in the district mofussil
diwani adalat to decide civil cases. A collector was also supposed to give judgment in the cases
related to the succession and boundaries of zamindaries and talukdaries. In cases of successions to
zamindaries the adalat was also to check whether they were regulated by any general usages of the
area where the dispute arose, or any particular usage of the family. He also had to discharge his
duties as magistrate in the district. Appeals from the diwani adalat laid to the Sadar Diwani Adalat in
the matter involving 1000 or more. Sadar Adalat was consisted of Governor-General-in-Council and
native law officers to assist them. A further appeal could be laid down to King-in-Council in the
cases involving 5000 pounds or more.

While discharging his duties as magistrate he was empowered to try, arrest and punish criminals in
petty offences. He could also give a 15 days imprisonment to the criminals indulged in petty
offences. In the cases of severe crimes he could send the arrested criminals to the mofussil fozdari
adalat for trial and punishment. All Europeans who were not British were the subject matter of
mofussil fozdari adalat as were Indians.

A collector had to discharge both his functions as revenue collector and judge of civil court same
time and he had to keep both these functions separate from each other. So, he was supposed to
perform a tough task and this could not be done without some assistance. A provision was made for
the appointment of a subordinate officer known as registrar in each adalat to provide aid and
assistance to the collector in discharging his duties. He was to decide the cases up to Rs.200 in the
mofussil diwani adalat. But his judgment would be valid only with the signature of the collector so as
to avoid any miscarriage of justice.

Appraisal of the Scheme

Prior to 1787 the Englishmen residing in the interior area i.e. beyond Calcutta were subject of the
criminal jurisdiction only of the Supreme Court and a case could not be filled in the mofussil fozdari
adalat against them. So, if one was to file a case against an Englishmen one had to move to Calcutta
for doing the same on his own expenses. No device was there to bring them to book. This

6
encouraged the Englishmen to indulge in criminal activities as they also knew that Indians didn’t
have adequate resources to bring them to court. In the present scheme the provision was made that a
magistrate could take British subjects into custody. After making initial inquiry he could send the
accused to Calcutta for the trial if he had sufficient grounds for his conviction. The prosecutor and
the witnesses also had to move to Calcutta and they didn’t have enough money than the state would
bear their expenses.
Another good point of this scheme was that it recognized native customs and usages in the cases
related to succession of zamindaries.

Defects of the Scheme

The major defect of this scheme was that it made civil justice again subservient to the revenue
collection. It was a retrograde step for the administration of civil justice as more emphasis was given
to the revenue collection than administration of justice. Another defect was that the collector alone
was to perform so many functions that were not possible for a normal human being. Although he had
a registrar under him to assist him but registrar could not work independently. He could not decide
cases on his own and the final signature was to be done by the collector only. More over the collector
was again made a powerful personality, who was to perform several functions without any check on
him at the local level. It increased the chances that he would abuse his powers.

SCHEME OF 1790

Pretext of the Scheme

After reforming administration of civil justice Cornwallis introduced reforms in the area of criminal
justice. It seems that Cornwallis needed some time to understand situation regarding the criminal law
in India. He took his time and introduced new scheme for the reorganization of criminal judicature in
1790. Cornwallis found that there existed a general sense of insecurity of life and property, rampant
corruption was there in courts and jails were overcrowded. The whole system was defective and
desperately needed a change.2

2
. V. D. Kulshreshtha’s Landmarks in Indian Legal History and Constitutional History. 2005 a, op. cit., pp. 136-37

7
Deprivation of Justice
The administration of criminal justice was still depended on the Muslim law officers. There still
existed some authority of Nawab in this sphere. Kazis muftis and moulvies used to sit as a judge in
the Mofussil diwani adalat. On the other hand, Sadar Diwani Adalat which was situated in the
Murshirabad and this court was presided over by Reza Khan who was Naib Nizam at that time. He
was enjoying absolute power in the matters concerning criminal judicature. He could hire and fire
any subservient judge any time. He had a minimal contact with Governor-General and Council. So,
he had no one to answer as the Nawab was not a powerful figure. His judgments were final and were
executed without giving any information to the remembrance. Even if some information was given to
him it would just relate to the prisoner’s name, his offence and the punishment awarded to him. No
where it was mentioned on what grounds the punishment was awarded to the convict. So, the
remembrance could hardly do anything and thus he was ineffective too. He, at the max, could bring
the cases regarding injustice and corruption to the Governor-General and Council. Then Governor-
General and Council could only ask Naib Nizam to take effective steps to resolve them. But, then it
was up to the Naib Nizam to take any action which he hardly used to do. So, the government had
hardly any control over the criminal judicature. Although the office of magistrate was under the
government’s control but it had very limited functions. Most of the criminal trials were held either
under Muslim officers or under Naib Nizam. There existed a chaotic condition as regards to the
criminal judicature.

Reasons for the Chaotic Condition in Criminal Judicature

The Muslim officers who were the judges in the Sadar Nizamat Adalat or Mofussil Nizamat Adalat
used to get their salaries from the allowances given to Nawab by the company. So, it is quite obvious
that they used to get a very low salary for their judicial work and hence they had to depend on the
bribes and other corrupt means to maintain the dignity of their office and families. They didn’t get
even their salaries on time and they remained in debts for several months. More over they didn’t
have job security. Niab Nizam could throw them out of office anytime.

Another factor which was affecting the criminal judicature was that an educated person who
belonged to good family and of high morals was not at all attracted towards being a judge in such a
chaotic situation. Only the persons who were uneducated, unemployed and were in need of money
through whatever means accepted the post as judge. So, a fair and just decision could not be accepted

8
from them. As they were uncertain about their tenure they tried to get rich as soon as possible to lead
a comfortable life after their dismissal. They were just in need of money to lead their life and that’s
why they indulge in corrupt activities, such as taking bribes and giving biased judgment. Judgment
of the court could be brought by simply paying some bribe to the judges. So, there existed a
miscarriage of justice. Poor, innocent people had to suffer severe punishment as they didn’t have
enough resourced to pay as bribes and on the other hand offenders like robbers either got acquitted
by the court or got less punishment as they could pay bribe as per the wish of the judges. This system
encouraged crimes as the criminals had in their mind that they could easily get acquitted by paying
bribes.
Even the witnesses were not ready to come to court as they knew already that the offender was going
to be acquitted by the court by paying bribe and after the acquittal he would surely going to take a
revenge of it.
More over criminal judicature was mainly centered to the mofussil diwani adalat. Only the cases
related to life and limb were sent to the Sadar Nizamat Adalat. Neither the government nor the Sadar
Nizamat Adalat had effective control over the acts of mofussil diwani adalat due to their
geographical farness. Mofussil adalat used to have unlimited powers as most of the cases fall under
its ambit. Even the cases which were sent from the mofussil adalat to Sadar adalat mofussil adalat
played a vital role. In such cases Sadar adalats were dependent on the record sent by the mofussil
adalat. Mofussil adalat could manufacture and produce any record in front of Sadar adalat so as to
make it sure that who was going to acquit or who was going to be punished at the Sadar adalat.

Delay in Criminal Proceedings

The proceedings in the nizamat adalat either mofussil or sadar took too much time and were tardy
and played a vital role in raising the plight of the prisoners. Mostly this situation arose in the
mofussil adalats as they generally had a large number of cases. Magistrate had a meager power so he
generally used to send cases to the mofussil adalat. On the other hand only the cases involving the
question of life and limb were further moved to sadar adalat. So, the mofussil adalats were
overburdened. More over the witnesses took more than the expected time for the reason mentioned
earlier. In a case a prisoner had been confined in prison for more than 10 years on the charge of
murder without being sentenced. Same were the situation with the sadar adalats. There proceedings
remained confusing and chaotic. Reports were sent from the mofussil adalats of the cases to be
decided by the sadar adalats. But these cases remained there for several years without being disposed
of. Many times adalat itself intentionally prolonged the cases so as the prosecutor himself withdraw

9
the cases and the adalat need not to take extra burden for giving judgment. All this created lots of
problem like prosecutor and the witnesses had to wait for a long period for the judgment and they by
that time had to move court by and then. By the passage to time conviction of crime got difficult as it
was difficult to keep the evidence intact for such a long period. Sometimes prisoners remained
behind the bars for much more time than the punishment of their crime. So an acquitted prisoner was
no more remained a contented person. He had lost his health, wealth and reputation. Even the
condition of prisons was so insanitary that many of the prisoners died during their trial. So, there was
a need of change in the system. Punishment must follow the crime so an example could be set for
others.

In that period the point also to be noticed was that the punishment was no where related to the crime
which was committed. Punishment was depended on the character of judges. There was not any strict
provision to be followed. Like for robbery the punishment varied from 39 stripes to loss of limb and
death. Theft was usually to be punished by loss of limb. The sentence of confinement during pleasure
could be applied from serious offences like murder to minor offences. A criminal getting such
punishment was supposed to remain in prison for his lifetime unless he pays some bribe to the
officers.
There existed a misapplication of law due to rampant corruption in the machinery. Judges having
guided by bribes used to give biased judgment. Serious offenders were discharged with very minimal
punishment and the innocent and minor offenders got severe punishment. Persons who confessed
their crimes got more severe punishment than those who didn’t confess even if the court had strong
evidence against them. In one case two men with large arms plundered the zamindar and murdered a
man. One of the offenders got one month imprisonment and another was supposed to provide a bond
of good conduct. In another case two armed persons with a mob of 400 people plundered the
zamindar and murdered 8 persons there. One of the accused was sentenced to 10 days imprisonment
and rests were acquitted. Most of the robbers were protected by the zamindars. They used to pay
bribes from their behalf and thus it was very difficult to keep a robber in imprisonment for a long
time.

Questionnaire Issued
Lord Cornwallis was worried about the situation regarding criminal judicature. For getting profound
information he issued questionnaire for the district magistrates. He included the following 9
questions in his questionnaire.

10
 1. What is the average time length between the commitment and sentence on prisoners?
2. Do murder and robbery punished with death sentences or not?
3. Officers get their salaries within the stipulated time or not?
4. Are their allowances adequate for their situations?
5. Are the officers qualified by the education and principles for the trial of prisoners?
6. Are the prisoners well treated or ill treated during confinement?
7. Do the principles of Muslim law appear well adapted to the suppression of crimes or not?
8. What effective means could be adapted to suppress dacoity and water robbers?
9. What are the most effectual means to reform the mofussil police to the minimum expenses of
the government?
Cornwallis found disastrous results out of the questionnaire. He found this system totally useless,
corrupt and rotten to this core. He felt that an efficient administration of criminal justice is necessary
for the maintenance of law and order and same is requisite for the security of life and property
without which welfare and prosperity of a nation cannot be ensured. So, Cornwallis decided to bring
changes in the area of criminal justice. He found that existing situation in the area of criminal justice
is because of the defects which exist in the Muslim law that were contrary to the natural justice and
the defects in the constitution of the courts.
Cornwallis decided to separate all the powers from Nawab relating to the criminal justice through a
new scheme.

Outlines of the Scheme

On December 3, 1790 Lord Cornwallis brought a new scheme for criminal justice administration. It
contained followings important features: -
1. This scheme totally abolished the authority of Nawab from the sphere of criminal justice.
2. It transferred the administration of criminal justice from Muslim law officers to English men.
3. Muslim law officers remained in the court just to expound law.
4. Governor could now closely supervise the administration of criminal justice.
Thus the criminal judicature was placed on the same footing as the civil judicature had been since
1772.

Three Branches
This scheme had three branches. At the lowest level were the magistrates in the districts. Above it a
new Court of Circuit was created and on the highest level was the Sadar Nizamat Adalat. The venue

11
of Sadar Nizamat Adalat was now shifted from Murshirabad to Calcutta so Governor-General-in-
Council could closely monitor it. Governor-General-in-Council now to sit as a judge in the Sadar
Nizamat Adalat and the authority of Nawab over it no longer exists. Kazis and Muftis remained in
the court to expound the law. The operative law here was the Muslim Law which could be amended
by the Governor-General-in-Council. This adalat was to sit at least once a week and was to maintain
diary of all proceedings. If it thought that a prisoner deserved mercy than it could send it to the
Governor-General-in-Council for pardon or easing of the punishment.

Lord Cornwallis also brought about changes in mofussil nizamat adalat. He reorganized the entire
system. He divided districts of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa into four divisions namely Patna, Calcutta,
Murshirabad and Dacca. A Court of Circuit was established in each of the districts replacing earlier
mofussil nizamat adalat. It consisted of two English servants who could decide all criminal cases. It
was not a stationary court and it could move from place to place within the division to try the
accused persons. It was to visit each district within its jurisdiction twice a year to dispose the
criminal cases. This court was also to assisted by the Kazis and Muftis. They could not be removed
by till their tenure was over except by the Governor-General-in-Council on charges of misconduct
and incapacity. Salaries were increased of these law officers so they keep themselves with bribe and
men of good character and ability could be attracted towards these offices. These officers were to
propose the futwa in each case and court was to pass sentence according to that fatwa. But in case
court refused the futwa or in case of death or perpetual imprisonment it was to send to the Sadar
Nizamat Adalat.

The collector was also to act as a magistrate in each district. He was to arrest the accused person and
hold an inquiry against him. He could himself award punishment to the petty offenders which could
not exceed 15 canes or 15 days imprisonment. He could even acquit a person against whom no
charges were found. He was to bring criminals to the Court of Circuits if the crime was of much
serious nature. He could also grant bail to the accused except persons suspected for murder, robbery,
theft, and trespassing. He had to report to Sadar Nizamat Adalat about the orders passed by him once
in a month.

No special provisions were made in connection to the Englishmen residing in the mofussil areas.
They were treated by the same provisions of the charter of 1787 until new provisions came in 1793.

12
Appraisal of the Scheme
Under this new scheme the office of remembrance was abolished. By this scheme Governor-General
and the members of the Council assumed a full fledged responsibility of criminal justice
administration as now Nawab had no authority over it. Tenure and the salaries of the law officers
were now fixed so they can perform their task impartially and effectively. There existed a principle
of checks and balances in the whole system. Magistrate were to perform their task under Court of
Circuits, but the final decisions relating to the trial of serious offences were to be given by Sadar
Nizamat Adalat only.

Later Reforms
In 1792, government announced that it would pay a small daily allowance to all prosecutors and
witnesses for their stay in the Court of Circuit and for their journey to come and return to their place.
This provision was made so that the poor indigenous persons could come to court without worrying
about the expenses. Government also adopted measures to help those prisoners who were discharged
from prison after serving a long term. This provision was made so that these persons would not
indulge in the same business again. For this, government decided to pay a sufficient sum to those
who had served imprisonment for 6 months or more to maintain them for a month.

Defects of the Scheme

Major defect of this scheme was that it put much burden on the Court of Circuit as it was earlier to
the mofussil nizamat adalat. But mofussil adalats were present in each district and on the other hand
Court of Circuit existed only at 4 places. More over the power of magistrate remained meager as it
was earlier. So much of the accused had to remain in prison waiting for their trial by the Court of
Circuit when it visited the district for the same. A person who was accused of theft could neither be
tried by the magistrate nor could he get a bail and thus he had to wait for the Court of Circuit to
conduct his trial. Another defect of this scheme was that it didn’t provide any specific provision for
the trial of Englishmen residing in the mofussil areas. The provisions of scheme of 1787 were
continued here only. This remained the situation till 1793.

13
 SCHEME OF 1793

Pretext of the Scheme

As mentioned earlier scheme of 1787 vested judicial and revenue functions on the same person i.e.
the collector. He was at once judge, revenue collector and magistrate at the district level. Most of the
powers within the district vested on him. This scheme was at one side convenient, economic and
simple to implement. On the other side this scheme didn’t secure public security and its welfare just
for the reason that the collector didn’t have any overriding authority at the local level. The large
distance between the seat of Governor and that of collector made it impossible to control his actions.
So, collector was the absolute authority at the district. No checks and balancing scheme was present
to monitor the actions of collector. Theoretically one could complain the Governor-General-in-
Council but practically it was not possible and if possible it would be of no use. There were no forum
to enquire him at the district level and it was not possible to hold an inquiry at Calcutta due to the
difficulties of bringing witnesses there from the district. Even if a collector was dismissed from his
office it would not bring much relief to the peoples as the new collector would be having the same
power and the same desire to exploit it. There were no safeguard against the misuse of power. By the
passage of time Cornwallis realized that it was very important of the government to closely monitor
the actions of the collector as almost everything was under his control either directly or indirectly at
the district level.

Another defect of this scheme was that it brought judiciary again under the executive by merging
both functions. The intention behind bringing this scheme was to just to make revenue collection
effective. The judicial function was added it just to save the extra expenditure. The collector was
even given the finance work which is nowhere related to the judicial functions. Salaries and accounts
were attached to his office. Collector received allowance and commission for the work done by him
as a revenue collector but no allowance was paid to him for his judicial and magisterial function. His
promotion credit and future was depended on the effectiveness of the work done by him as a revenue
collector not as a judge. So, it is obvious he took his work as revenue collector more seriously than
of judicial function. As a result it was found in 1793 that over 30,000 cases were pending in adalats.

More over collector while working as a judge in mal adalat used to hear the cases of oppression and
undue exaction of the revenue which means that collector was judge in his own cause. As mentioned
earlier that collector was much concerned with its revenue collection. Collector for the same reason

14
didn’t take action against the oppressive acts of the zamindars as they used to contribute to revenue a
large amount and it would affect revenue collection if he took any action against them. So the
peoples who were under the oppression of the zamindars had no confidence on the impartiality of the
collector.

Lord Cornwallis thus found the whole system futile and felt that there is need for a change in the
system. He said that the existing system didn’t provide adequate security to the people’s life and
property. It would be advantageous for the company if it takes care of peoples happiness and their
satisfaction because this is very necessary for the longevity and continuance of the government in the
country.

Outlines of the Scheme

Lord Cornwallis brought this scheme with the sole motive to put courts as a protector of the rights
and property of individuals against encroachment by government officers. He wanted to provide a
system of administration of justice which may secure rights of every individual and promote general
welfare and prosperity of the country. Main features of this scheme were as followings: -

Separation of Executive and Judiciary

Both of the functions got separated through the II regulation of this scheme. By this regulation
collector remained only with the functions of revenue collection. Mal Adalats were abolished and its
cases were transferred to the mofussil diwani adalat. Civil cases were now placed under the
jurisdiction of diwani adalat and collector now had no relation with this adalat. Revenue cases
become triable like ordinary civil cases in the diwani adalat. Now collector remained only as an
administrative officer.

Re-organization of Diwani Adalat

Through Regulation III of the scheme diwani adalat were re-organized so as to make them more
efficient, impartial and independent. A diwani adalat was instituted in each district and in each of
three cities of Patna, Dacca and Murshirabad. Company’s civil servant was appointed to supervise
this court. All persons, except the British, came under the jurisdiction of this court. It was to take up
all the civil cases and revenue cases but not criminal cases. All the proceedings used to held in open
courts and the judges were not allowed to correspond with parties in cause pending before them.

15
Executive under Judicial Control
Section X of regulation III made collectors and executive officers subject to the diwani adalat for
their official acts. If they violate the regulations there were held personally liable and required to pay
damages to the injured party. By this the idea that the officers were above law and could commit
oppressive activities with immunity was totally eradicated. This was one of the greatest steps taken
by Lord Cornwallis during his Governor-Generalship to establish sovereignty and rule of law in
India.

Provision of Trial against Government

Lord Cornwallis put government on the same stand as the officials. A suit can be brought against the
government by an individual in the diwani adalat if one felt aggrieved or injured under the
regulations. For the first time such a provision was made to make government liable for its
unreasonable acts. This would ensure the feeling of security amongst individuals for their life and
property.

British Under Company’s Adalat

Earlier a case could not be filed against a British in the diwani adalat but a British could file a case
against a native in the local diwani adalat. If a native wanted to bring a suit against a British he had
to move to Supreme Court at Calcutta. It was practically impractical that one left his place, family
and occupation and on great expenses brings a suit against a British. Situation was totally biased and
inequitable which generally resulted in denial of justice. To counter this situation Cornwallis brought
a provision. According to this Diwani Adalat now had the power not to allow British to reside at the
distance more than 10 miles from Calcutta unless they executed a bond rendering themselves
amenable themselves to the adalats in all civil suits against them by Indians involving up to Rs. 500.
If a British came to adalat as a plaintiff then he had to execute a bond declaring himself a subject
matter of adalat’s jurisdiction and binding himself by the verdict of the court. Non-British were on
the same stands as were the natives. The flaw here was that it just limited the claims up to Rs. 500,
over this one still had to move Supreme Court.

Provincial Court of Appeal

Till 1793, only Sadar Diwani Adalat used to work as an appellate court which used to hear appeals
from the mofussil diwani adalat. There was no intermediary court to appeal between sadar adalat and
mofussil adalat. People who were dissatisfied with the judgment of mofussil adalat had to move to
sadar adalat. It would prove very expensive and exhausting to the natives. Most of the people for the
16
same reason didn’t go there and had to remain contended with the judgment. Having in mind this
situation Lord Cornwallis made a provision under V regulation of this scheme. Under this provision
four courts of appeal were created which had their seat at Patna, Calcutta, Dacca and Murshirabad.
Each court consists of three company’s servant, of whom two were to make a quorum. These courts
were not made to discharge only duty related to hearing of appeals but it was to discharge multiple
functions. It was meant to try civil suits sent to them by the Government or by Sadar Diwani Adalat.
It used to receive original suits which a mofussil adalat refused to hear. It could further receive
charge of corruption against the judges of diwani adalat, to forward them to sadar adalat. It used to
hear appeals from mofussil adalat, filed within three months, without any monetary limit. This was
not the provision earlier. Before 1793 peoples could bring an appeal to the sadar adalat from
mofussil adalat only in the cases having monetary value of Rs. 1000 or more. This provision
abolished any such monetary limit any now any civil case with any monetary value could be
entertained by the Provincial Court of Appeal. One of the paramount feature of this scheme was that
it imposed Provincial court as a supervising authority over the mofussil adalat. Earlier sadar adalat
could not monitor the functions of mofussil adalat as it was situated far from the mofussil adalat and
judges of the sadar adalat i.e. Governor-General and Council remained busy with administrative
work rather than exercising monitoring function over mofussil adalat. This scheme thus, imposed a
check on the functions of the mofussil adalat. Appeals from Provincial court used to go to Sadar
adalat with a monetary limit of Rs. 1000 or more.
A further appeal could be made to King-in-Council in cases of value £ 5,000 or more. Sadar Diwani
Adalat was also to work as supervisor over the mofussil adalat and provincial adalat. It could hear
the charges of corruption against the judges of both adalats. It could also request the government to
prosecute an accused person in the Supreme Court.

Decentralization of Civil Justice

Cornwallis noticed that only one mofussil diwani adalat would not suffice to bring adequate justice
to all. Having just one court in the district would increase the pressure of court and vital matters
would remain in a state of delay just because the court had to entertain petty matters on the same
preference as the vital matters. Having this thing in mind Cornwallis made a new provision under
XIII regulation. It established a Registrar’s court to try suits up to Rs. 200 in each district. Registrar’s
decisions must have been signed by the judge of mofussil adalat. Further in each district provision
was made under regulation XL for the issue of commissions to landholders, farmers, and tehsildars
appointing them as Munsiffs to try suits up to Rs. 50. Suits could be instituted directly before the
Munsiffs but they didn’t have any authority to execute their own decree. They had to submit their
17
proceedings to the diwani adalats. Appeals from Munsiffs were first to go to mofussil adalat and then
to provincial adalat. No Munsiffs could be removed from his office before expiry of his term without
sufficient cause proved in the Sadar Diwani Adalat.

Positions of Indians under the Scheme

The highest post of Indians to be opted through this scheme was of Munsiffs. Munsiffs were to be
elected from the landholders and land farmers. Here there is a flaw in the scheme. Only zamindars
and rich farmers were to be selected for this post. They were the revenue officer and were holding
this judicial function too. So, at the grass root level there existed an amalgamation of judiciary and
revenue collection.
A provision was also there to make respectable Hindus and Muslims as ameens, a post junior to
Munsiffs. An ameen could try a suit up to Rs. 50 but he could only try the cases which were referred
to him by the mofussil adalat. A provision was also there for arbitrators. An arbitrator could decide
the cases if both parties executed an arbitration bond. His decisions could only be enforced by adalat.

Abolishment of Court Fee

Under the new scheme Lord Cornwallis abolished the court fee which used to exist earlier and
amounted 2% - 5% on the cause of action to be paid by plaintiff. Earlier the court fee was justified
on the ground that it discourages litigation and brings only those cases which are of some vital issue.
This could not be the case as there were already a number of cases remained pending in the courts.
Cornwallis also denied this explanation and said that people were not litigious by nature and this fee
debarred peoples from recovering their rights. He also said that the large number of pending case
were not due to the litigiousness of the people but because of the dilatoriness and inefficiency of
administration of justice.

Changes in Criminal Judicature

The provisions of 1790 were remained intact in 1793 except a few changes which were introduced.
In 1790 collector used to perform the magisterial function. Now this power was taken away from
him and transferred to the judges of mofussil adalats. The magistrates could now punish petty
offences by imprisonment up to 15 days or by a fine up to Rs. 100. The Court of Circuits of 1790 and
Provincial courts of 1793 were merged to create four Courts of Appeal and Circuit. Each court
consists of three English judges. The court was to divide itself into two divisions and which were to
go on circuits simultaneously. After completing the same all the judges were to sit to hear the appeals
from mofussil diwani adalat.
18
Changes brought in Legal Profession
Prior to 1793 there were no specific provision for the professional lawyers in the court, nor was it in
practice to have a lawyer while pleading in court. Parties generally either themselves or through there
servant used to plead in court. In some cases parties plead through professional lawyers. Parties
pleading themselves or through their servants had no knowledge of constitution and practice of court.
Nor they knew the principles of Hindu Law and Muslim Law. That is way they could put the best
arguments before the court in their favor and for the same reason they could not get that whether the
court proceeded according to law or not. They used to bring irrelevant witnesses and ask them
irrelevant questions which only burdens court’s record. Those persons who took the services of a
professional lawyer were not in a better condition. These lawyers used to be of low moral value,
having no better knowledge than their clients. They wouldn’t hesitate in betraying their clients if
other party would bribe them. They generally used to draw the proceedings so as to gain more and
more profit which resulted in hoard of cases in adalats. Therefore a man of character and education
was much needed as lawyer in the courts. Moreover, it was essential in the interest of justice that
arguments for and against a claim were stated to the judge so that he could decide correctly.
Regulation VII of 1793 was enacted to regulate the legal profession. Through this provision Sadar
Diwani Adalat was authorized to appoint pleaders to plead in various adalats by issuing them
sunnuds. But it should take utmost care in issuing sunnuds as a person of good character, liberal
educated and versed in the knowledge in the Hindu and Muslim Law. Each pleader was to take oath
to perform his duties faithfully. A fixed tenure was granted to them before he couldn’t be suspended
except in some cases. He could be suspended on the charges of frauds, misbehavior and incapacity.
They were to charge a moderate fee which was decided by the government. If any lawyer found to be
delaying suits of his client for his own advantage then he could be prosecuted for damages.

Native Law Officers

Native law officers were there in the court for a long period to expound law. This provision was
allowed to be continued in the new scheme. But a few changes were introduced to the existing
system to make judicial administration better.
They were given a tenure security, so that they could discharge their duties more efficiently.
Provision was also made to make them subject to the penalties for their misconduct. In the XII
regulation of this scheme it was enacted that all native law officers belonging to various courts were
to be appointed by the Governor-General-in-Council. Governor-General-in-Council could remove
any officer on the charges of incapacity, misconduct, or any act of open recklessness in their private
conduct.
19
 CONCLUSION

It won’t be an overstatement if it is said that Lord Cornwallis’s measures laid the foundation of long
run British Empire in India. He, before bringing changes in system, took his time in identifying the
problems. He sometimes himself criticized his measures and said to bring another change in the
system. It seems that he wanted to create an absolute system in which rule of law prevails and which
is far from bribery corruption and prejudices. His first scheme which came in 1787 was related to
judicial as well as revenue reforms. His first reforms were introduced in two regulations, first was
related to the revenue matters while second was related to the administration of justice. By this
scheme he bestowed all the revenue and judicial functions to the collector. In 1790 he introduced
three different types of courts. Court of District Magistrate for small criminal offences, Circuit
Courts to administer justice in the matter presented to it by District Magistrate and Sadar Nizam
Adalat at the above of both these courts. Thus by this scheme he introduced revolutionary changes in
criminal judicature. He removed the shadow of Nawab from criminal matters and made the company
to assume the power of Nawab. His judicial plan of 1793 was an outstanding step in the development
of Indian legal system. Through this plan he not only separated judiciary from executive but also
brought executive under the control of judiciary. Now the administrators were put under the check of
judiciary so as to lessen bribery and corruption in the judicial system. He put reforms in judicial
system to his first priority and others were at subservient. He came to the conclusion that an effective
judicial system should guarantee satisfaction of people. If the people were satisfied than only it
would result into the longevity of the existing system.

20
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books & Articles :-

1. Raj, Kapil (2000), "Colonial Encounters and the Forging of New Knowledge and National
Identities: Great Britain and India, 1760–1850", Osiris, 2nd Series 15 (Nature and Empire:
Science and the Colonial Enterprise): 119–134.
2. Judd, Dennis (2004), The Lion and the Tiger: The Rise and Fall of the British Raj, 1600–1947, Oxford
and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. xiii, 280, ISBN 0192803581.
3. Sinha, Chittaranjan. “SIGNIFICANCE OF CORNWALLIS'S JUDICIAL REFORMS IN
BENGAL PRESIDENCY.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 11, no. 2, 1969, pp. 185–
192.
4. Kulshreshtha, Visheshwar Dayal, and B. M. Gandhi. V. D. Kulshreshtha’s Landmarks in
Indian Legal History and Constitutional History. 2005
5. Jain.M.P. Outlines of Indian Legal &Constitutional History.Nagapur,1952,p.12
6. Bayly, C. A. (2000), Empire and Information: Intelligence Gathering and Social Communication in
India, 1780–1870 (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society), Cambridge and London:
Cambridge University Press. Pp. 426, ISBN 0521663601.

21