Md.

Meftahul Hasan
Lecturer
Department of Law
Jagannath University

[email protected]
 Mayor’s Court

(The Charter of 1687 & the

Charter of 1726 )
 Charter of 1687
The Charter of 1687 provided for the creation of a
Mayor’s Court at Fort St. George in Madras. The
Company preferred to issue a Charter under its own
authority. It did so as it was afraid that persons
appointed under the King’s Charter may create trouble
by violating the Company’s orders due to their
appointment by higher authority.
 Establishment of Madras Corporation:

The Charter of 1687 authorized the Company to create a

Corporation of Madras and establish a Mayor’s Court. In
1688, the
 Charter of 1687
Company created a Corporation of Madras consisting
of a Mayor, 12 Aldermen and 60 or more Burgesses.
The Charter provided that an Englishman would be
elected every year as Mayor by the Aldermen.
Aldermen were appointed for their life or during their
residence in Madras. Out of 12 Aldermen, 3 were
required to be Englishmen compulsorily.
 Charter of 1687
The Mayor and Aldermen were to elect Burgesses from
amongst the people who were in the Company’s service.
 Establishment of Mayor’s Court

The Company’s Charter also created a Mayor’s Court

consisting of a Mayor and 2 Aldermen, which formed its
quorum. Mayor’s Court was a part of the Corporation of
Madras. It was empowered to carry out judicial
functions.
 Charter of 1687
The company preferred to establish the Court under its
own authority, as it was not willing to invite English
officers who were working in the judiciary of England
under the Crown. The Company officials were afraid of
interference by the British Parliament in the company’s
matters and, therefore, were not inclined to invite
superior officials to its settlements in India.
 Charter of 1687
 Jurisdiction of the Mayor’s Court
The Mayor’s Court exercised its jurisdiction in civil
cases where the value of the cases exceeded 3 pagodas,
and in criminal cases with the assistance of juries.
 Procedure of the Court

The procedure of the Court was not any definite

procedure of law. Its proceedings were conducted in a
summary way according to justice, equity and good
conscience and the laws framed by the Company.

 Charter of 1687
 Right to Appeal
An appeal was allowed to go to the Court of Admiralty
from the decisions of the Mayor’s Court in all civil cases
exceeding 3 pagodas, and in criminal cases where the
accused was given death sentence.
 Appointment of Recorder

The Charter provided provisions for the appointment of

an expert in law as Recorder, to assist the Mayor’s Court
in deciding cases.
 Charter of 1726
The Charter of 1726 provided for the establishment
of a corporation in each presidency Town, i.e.,
Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. Each consisted of a
Mayor and nine Aldermen. It provided that the Mayor
would be elected every year by nine Aldermen and the
retiring Mayor, from amongst the Aldermen. An
Alderman was appointed either for life or for the term
of his residence in the Presidency Town. The
Governor-in-Council was empowered to dismiss or
remove any of the Alderman on reasonable
 Charter of 1726
cause. It is, therefore, said that the Charter of 1726 for
the first time created a subordinate legislative authority
in each of the three Presidency Towns of india.
 Establishment of Mayor’s Court

The Charter of 1726 also constituted a Mayor’s Court

for each of the Presidency Towns consisting of a Mayor
and nine Aldermen. Three of them, i.e., the Mayor or
senior Alderman together with two Aldermen were
required to be present to form the quorum of the Court.
 Charter of 1726
 Jurisdiction of the Mayor’s Court
The Mayor’s Court were authorized to try, hear and
determine all civil actions and pleas of parties among
themselves. The Court was also granted testamentary
jurisdiction and power to issue letters of administration
to the legal heir of the deceased person. It was
authorized to exercise its jurisdiction over all persons
living in the Presidency Town and working in the
Company’s subordinate factories.
 Charter of 1726
 Procedure of the Court
The procedure of the Mayor’s Court was clearly laid
down by the Charter. The Sheriff, an officer of the Court,
was to serve the processes of the Court. The Court
issued summons directing the Sheriff to order the
defendant to appear before the Court. In case the
defendant failed to appear, a warrant was issued by the
Court asking the Sheriff to arrest the defendant and
present him before the Court to face the charges. The
Court was empowered to release the
 Charter of 1726
defendant on such bail or security as it considered
suitable. The judgment of the Court was followed by a
warrant of execution. The Sheriff was authorized to
arrest and imprison the defendant.
 Right of Appeal

The Charter allowed an appeal to the Governor-in-

Council from the decision of the Mayor’s Court in each
Presidency Town. A period of 14 days, from the date of
judgment, was prescribed to file an appeal. The decision
of the Governor-in-Council was final in all
 Charter of 1726
cases involving a sum less than 100 pagodas. In case the
sum involved was either 1000 pagodas or more, a further
appeal was allowed to be filed to the King-in-Council
from the decision of the Governor-in-Council.
 Appointment of the Justices of Peace

The Charter provided that in each Presidency Town, the

Governor and five senior members of the Council will
have criminal jurisdiction and would be Justices of the
Peace. They were empowered to arrest and punish
persons for petty criminal cases. Thus the Charter of
 Charter of 1726
1726 made the beginning of importing English ideas,
technical forms and procedure of criminal justice into
India.
 Legislative Power

The Charter empowered the Governor and the Council

of each Presidency Town to make bye-laws, rules and
ordinances and to prescribe punishments for its breach
which should not be contrary to English Law but
agreeable to reason.
Distinction between the Charter of
1687 & the Charter of 1726
The Charter of 1687, which was issued by the
Company, authorized it to create a Corporation of
Madras and establish a Mayor’s Court. The Mayor’s
Court was a part of the corporation of Madras. It was
empowered to carry out judicial functions. On the
other hand, the Charter of 1726 was issued by the
English King for the establishment of corporation in
each presidency Town at Bombay, Calcutta and
Madras. The Charter also constituted a
 Distinction between the Charter of
1687 & the Charter of 1726 (Cont.)
Mayor’s Court for each of the Presidency Town. So, the
Mayor's Court under the Charter of 1687 was made by
the Company while the Mayor's Courts under the
Charter of 1726 drew their energy straightforwardly
from the Crown. Some differences between the
Charters are as follows:
 Scope of Application

The Charter of 1687 applied to Madras only whereas

the 1726 Charter applied to all Presidency Towns.
 Distinction between the Charter of
1687 & the Charter of 1726 (Cont.)
 Position of Mayor’s Court
The Mayor’s Court established in 1687 was a
Company’s Court. On the other hand, the three Mayor’s
Courts established in 1726 were Royal Courts as they
were created by King’s Charter of 1726. Naturally, the
status of these later Courts was recognized by the
Courts in England.
 Jurisdiction of the Court

The old Mayor’s Court at Madras was

 Distinction between the Charter of
1687 & the Charter of 1726 (Cont.)
empowered to exercise its jurisdiction over all civil and
criminal matters. Appeal was allowed to the Admiralty
Court from the decisions of the Mayor’s Court. On the
other hand, the Mayor’s Courts established in 1726
were entrusted with civil jurisdiction only. Appeal from
the decisions of the Courts was allowed firstly to the
Governor-in-Council of the respective Presidency. A
further appeal was allowed to the King-in-Council in all
cases involving a sum of 1000 pagodas or more.
 Distinction between the Charter of
1687 & the Charter of 1726 (Cont.)
 Law and procedure
No specific rules of law and procedure were laid down
for the old Mayor’s Court at Madras. The Mayor’s
Courts, established by the Charter of 1726, were
required to follow a well-defined procedure based on
English Law and practice. Thus, the former can be said
to be governed more by principles of equity whereas
the latter was governed by English Law.
 Distinction between the Charter of
1687 & the Charter of 1726 (Cont.)
 Appointment of Recorder
A lawyer known as Recorder was attached to the old
Mayor’s Court at Madras in order to advice the Court,
while no such officer was attached to the three new
Mayor’s Courts.
 Participation of Indians

In the old Mayor’s Court at Madras some Indians were

authorized to sit as judges together with English
Aldermen. The Charter of 1726 specifically provided
for this purpose but it may be stated that the
representation
 Distinction between the Charter of
1687 & the Charter of 1726 (Cont.)
of Indians under the Charter of 1726 was practically
negligible. In fact, no Indian was ever appointed.
 Position of Executive

The Charter of 1726 entrusted judicial powers to the

Governor-in-Council who had all the executive powers.
This was not so under the provisions of the Charter of
1687. T Charter of 1687 he Charter of 1687 is
considered to be superior than the Charter of 1726 as
the modern progressive ideas of separation of
 Distinction between the Charter of
1687 & the Charter of 1726 (Cont.)
judiciary from the executive were deeply rooted in it.