-> The British laid the foundations of a new system of dispensing justice through a hierarchy of civil and criminal courts.

-> It was started by Warren Hastings but it was stabilized by Cornwallis.

-> Civil court or Diwani Adalat was established in each district headed by District Judge who belonged to Civil Services.

-> Appeal from the District Court lay first to four Provincial Courts (Dhaka, Calcutta, Murshidabad, Patna) of Civil Appeal and then finally to the Sadar Diwani Adalat whose headquarter situated at Calcutta. The appeals from the Sadar Diwani Adalat were submitted to the King in England. The king only entertained those cases whose value was more than Rs. 5000.

-> Below the district Court were Registrars’ Courts headed by Europeans and a number of subordinate courts headed by Indian Judges known as munsifs and amins.

-> Munsifs could decide the case where the value was less than Rs 50.

-> District Judge could deliver justice only to Indians, not Europeans.

-> To deal with Criminal cases, Cornwallis divided the presidency of Bengal into Four divisions, in each of which a Court of Circuit presided over by the Civil servants was established. Below these courts came a large number of Indian magistrates to try petty cases.

-> Appeals from the Court of Circuit lay with Sadar Nizamat Adalat, again it was also situated in Calcutta.

-> In 1831, William Bentinck abolished the Provincial Courts of Appeal and Circuit and their work was assigned to Commissions and later to District Judges and District Collectors. Bentinck also raised status and power of Indian

in the Judicial service and appointed them as Deputy Magistrates, Subordinate Judges and Principal Sadar Amins.

-> In 1865, High Courts were established at Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras to replace Sadar Courts of Diwani and Nizamat.


-> Indian laws were based on shastras and shariat. British gradually evolved a new system of law. They introduced regulations, codified the existing laws and often systematized and modernized them through judicial interpretation.

-> The Charter Act of 1833 conferred all Law-making power on the Governor-General-in-Council.

-> In 1833, the government appointed law commission headed by Lord Macaulay to codify Indian Laws whose work resulted in –

    1) the Indian Penal Code,

    2) the western-derived Codes of Civil

    3) Criminal Procedure and other codes of Law.

-> Almost all Courts are to deliver Justice to Indians, Judges could not interpret if Englishman is involved in any Case or Crime. There were separate Courts for English People.

●》 The Rule of Law

-> This meant, British Administration to be carried out in obedience to Law, which clearly defined the rights, privileges and obligations of the subjects, and not according to the personal discretion of the ruler.

-> In practice, the bureaucracy and the police enjoyed arbitrary powers and interfered with the rights and liberties of people.

-> The rule of law was to some extent a guarantee of the personal liberty of people.

-> Previous rulers of India had been bound by tradition and customs but they always had the legal right to take any administrative steps they wanted and there existed no authority before whom their acts could be questioned.

-> In English rule, administration largely carried on according to laws as interpreted by the courts, though the laws were often defective, weren’t made by the people through a democratic process but made by the foreign rulers and left a great deal of power in hands of civil servants and the police.

■ Constitutional Development 

●》 Equality before Law

-> The Indian legal system under British rule was based on the concept of Equality before Law. This meant that in the eyes of the law, all individual were equal.

-> The same law applied to all persons irrespective of their caste, religion, or class.

-> Previous judicial system had paid heed to caste distinctions and had differentiated between high-born and low-born. Ex – For the same crime, lighter punishment was given to brahmin than to a non-brahmin.

-> There was one exception in this great so-called principle Equality before Law. The Europeans and their descendants had separate courts and even laws. In criminal cases, they could be tried only by Europeans judges.

-> Many English officials, Military officers, planters and merchants behaved with Indians in a haughty, harsh and even brutal manner. When efforts were made to bring them to justice, they were given indirect protection and consequently light or no punishment.

-> There emerged one another type of inequality. It was the fees of Court, in other words justice was not a free service, it demanded a high charge, not only court but lawyers had a separate charge as a case fee. Courts are often situated in distant towns which again caused some money for justice seekers.

-> The complicated laws were beyond the grasp of the illiterate and ignorant peasants. The rich people could turn and twist the laws and court to operate in their favour.

-> The corrupt police and court officials led to the denial of Justice.

-> The poor people often selected tolerance against long and corrupt journey of Justice.

-> Judicial system in British time was slow, expensive and formal while in pre-British time was speedy, inexpensive and informal.



■ Judicial organization was the 4th pillar of British administration, to read about first 3 pillars click here.