Judicial Organisation Under British

Through a hierarchy of civil and criminal courts, the British laid the groundwork for a new system of dispensing justice. Despite having been started by Warren Hastings, Cornwallis stabilised the system in 1793. A Diwani Adalat, or civil court, was established in each district, presided over by a District Judge from the Civil Service. The Civil Judge and the Collector were thus separated by Cornwallis. 

 

•    The District Court's appeal was first heard by four Provincial Courts of Civil Appeal, and then by the Sadar Diwani Adalat. Below the District Court were Registrars' Courts, which were led by Europeans, and a number of subordinate courts, known as Munsifs and Amins, which were led by Indian judges.

 

•    To handle criminal cases, Cornwallis divided the Bengal Presidency into four Divisions, each with its own Court of Circuit presided over by civil servants. The civil courts applied customary law that had existed in any area or among a particular group of people since the beginning of time.

 

•    The Provincial Courts of Appeal and Circuit were abolished by William Bentinck in 1831. Their work was first delegated to Commissions, then to District Judges and Collectors.

 

•    In the judicial service, Bentinck elevated the status and powers of Indians by appointing them as Deputy Magistrates, Subordinate Judges, and Principal Sadar Amins.

 

•    To replace the Sadar Courts of District and Nizamat, High Courts were established in Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay in 1865. Through the enactment and codification of old laws, the British also established a new legal system. In India, the traditional justice system was largely based on customary law, which arose from long tradition and practise.

 

•    Many laws were based on both the shastras and the shariat, as well as imperial authority. The British, on the other hand, gradually developed a new legal system.

 

•    British regulations were introduced, existing laws were codified, and they were frequently systematised and modernised through judicial interpretation.

The Governor General-in-Council was given complete legislative authority by the Charter Act of 1833.

 

•    To codify Indian laws, the government appointed a Law Commission led by Lord Macaulay in 1833. The Indian Penal Code, the Western-derived Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure, and other laws were all influenced by Macaulay's work.

 

•    The same laws now applied throughout the country, and they were enforced by a uniform court system. As a result, India's judicial system was unified.

 

•    The British were the first to introduce the concept of the rule of law in its modern form. This meant that their administration was to be carried out, at least in theory, in accordance with laws that clearly defined the subjects' rights, privileges, and obligations, rather than at the ruler's whim or personal discretion. Of course, in practise, the bureaucracy and the police had arbitrary powers and infringed on people's rights and liberties. 

 

•    The rule of law was, in some ways, a guarantee of a person's personal liberty. It is true that previous Indian rulers were largely bound by tradition and custom.

 

•    However, they always had the legal right to take whatever administrative actions they wanted, and there was no other authority that could question their actions. 

 

•    Indian rulers and chiefs used this power to do whatever they pleased on occasion. Under British rule, on the other hand, administration was largely based on laws as interpreted by the courts, even though the laws themselves were frequently defensive, were enacted not by the people through a democratic process but by foreign rulers autocratically, and placed a great deal of power in the hands of civil servants and police. But that was perhaps unavoidable in a foreign regime that could not be democratic or libertarian by definition.

 

•    The British legal system in India was founded on the principle of equality before the law. This meant that all men were equal in the eyes of the law. The same law applied to everyone, regardless of caste, religion, or social class. Previously, the legal system had taken caste distinctions into account, distinguishing between the so-called highborn and lowborn. 

 

•    A Brahmin received a lesser punishment than a non-Brahmin for the same crime.

 

•    Similarly, zamindars and nobles were not judged as harshly as commoners in practise. In fact, they are frequently unable to be held accountable for their actions. 

 

•    The humble could now influence the justice system. However, there was one exception to this wonderful principle of equality before the law. Separate courts and even laws existed for Europeans and their descendants. They could only be tried by European judges in criminal cases.

 

•    Many English officials, military officers, planters, and merchants acted arrogantly, harshly, and even brutally toward Indians. When efforts were made to bring them to justice, many of the European judges before whom they could be tried gave them indirect and undue protection, and as a result, light or no punishment. As a result, there were numerous cases of miscarriage of justice. 

 

•    In practise, a new type of legal inequality emerged. As court fees, lawyers' fees, and witness expenses all had to be paid, justice became quite costly. Courts were frequently located in outlying towns. The legal battles dragged on for years.

 

•    The illiterate and ignorant peasants were unable to comprehend the complicated laws. The wealthy could always manipulate and twist the laws and courts to their advantage. The threat of taking a poor person through the lengthy legal process from the lower court to the highest court of appeal, and thus facing complete ruin, was often enough to bring him to heel. 

 

•    Furthermore, widespread corruption in the ranks of the police and the rest of the administrative apparatus resulted in the denial of judicial authority. Officials frequently favoured the wealthy. The zamindars suppressed the riots without fear of retaliation from the authorities. The pre-British justice system, on the other hand, was comparatively informal, quick, and inexpensive.

 

•    While the new judicial system was a significant step forward in terms of its foundation in the noble principles of the rule of law and equality before the law, as well as rational and humane man-made laws, it was a step back in other ways: it was now more expensive and involved longer delays.