ADALAT SYSTEM

Umang Dixit
BALLB(H) | REGULAR
Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Warren Hastings...................................................................................................................................... 3

Judicial Plan of 1772........................................................................................................................... 4

Judicial Plan of 1774............................................................................................................................... 6

Lord Cornwallis ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Judicial Plan of 1787 ....................................................................................................................... 8

Judicial Plan of 1790......................................................................................................................... 10

Judicial Plan of 1793......................................................................................................................... 10

Impact of Judicial Policies of the British Era on the Current Judicial System in India ........................ 11

The Laws........................................................................................................................................... 11

The Court Structure........................................................................................................................... 13

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Introduction
Prior to the establishment of a proper system regarding the administration of justice in India,
there was an extremely decadent system in place whose very existence itself was a grave
injustice. People could neither access judicial institutions easily, nor could they depend on these
to give them a fair and equitable judgement. In addition to that, there was not much
proportionality between the offence committed and punishment awarded (Retributional Justice
was gravely lacking, and was one of the many reasons for people to grow disillusioned with
the legal system in place.)

Furthermore, corruption was rampant, and the local law officers (Kazis, Muftis and the
Maulavis) were very prone to deciding cases in favour of people who could pay for the
judgements to go in their favour (which entirely defeated the function of a courts existence,
violating the principle of natural justice and sending a highly incorrect message to the public).
The Mughal Empire, when it was at the height of its power, had employed two officers in order
to conduct administration in the provinces also known as Subhahs, namely the Nawab and
the Diwan. The Nawab handled matters of military and criminal justice and law order; whilst
the Diwan. Handled mattes with regard to revenue collection and administration of civil justice
and revenue cases or disputes.[i]

But even they were extremely inefficient in carrying out their judicial responsibilities. One can
fairly deduce from their modus operandi that they were highly disinterested in the performance
of these functions (their lack of efficiency can also be attributed to, too many functions in their
hands leading to a scenario where they over worked). Each would delegate their responsibility
to their assistants (Daroga-adalat-al-alia as the assistant for the Nawab, and the Daroga-i-
adalat, for the Diwan). But they were again very corrupt due to acceptance of bribes and money
in order to adjudicate matters.

Once the East India Company attained the right of Diwani (which gave them the powers of
the Diwan-to adjudicate civil and revenue matters and collect revenue, keeping any surplus
after collection for themselves) for an annual sum of Rs. 26 Lakhs, they brought in Lord
Hastings (after the EEIC[ii]completely failed in carrying out its duties under Diwani) to turn
things around. They needed him to create a uniform system, a system that would be people
friendly and serve justice according to the natural principles of justice. Furthermore they
needed a system, which was simple, and efficient in order to serve the following two purposes:

Collection of revenue for the EEIC

Creating a uniform and easily understandable system of justice that was people friendly
and that aided not just the British nationals, but also the natives living within their
territories.

This was the job entrusted to Warren Hastings, when he was the Governor of Calcutta. He was
asked by the Court of Directors to employ methods that would reduce the oppression of the
Zamindars and other officials who were over-using their power for all the wrong reasons,
thereby causing undue pain and harm to the local peasants. It must be noted that the British
were extremely prudent in realising the unmistakable link between revenue and civil matters.
Having this thought in mind, helped them ensure that not only their aims in India were reached
but more importantly the interests of the people were neither neglected nor forgotten. These
were the conditions to which Warren Hastings was introduced and given the task of devising a
new legal system, which ultimately came to be known as the Adalat System.

Warren Hastings
Warren Hastings (1732-1818) was the first governor-general of British India. Initially he was
employed (1750) as a clerk by the East India Company, but he soon became manager of a
trading post in Bengal. When Calcutta was captured (1756) by Siraj-ud-Daula, Hastings was
taken captive . But he was soon released. After the British recaptured the city in 1757, he was
made British resident at Murshidabad. His good service and knowledge of the peoples
condition there brought appointment to the Calcutta council (1761), but he returned
to England (1764) disgusted with administrative corruption in Bengal.[iii]

Warren Hastings came into a situation of turmoil and disarray with respect to judicial
institutions and their administering of justice. The institutions that existed were corrupt and
inefficient. Moreover, they were inaccessible by the common masses who, were forced to incur
a great expense and travel great distances in order to attain justice. This was the situation that
Warren Hastings was given the mission of turning around. His attempts to reform the judicial
system were categorised in two plans:
 Judicial Plan of 1772
Judicial Plan of 1774

Judicial Plan of 1772

His administrative reforms included re-structuring the area, Districts being the smallest unit.
Now the areas of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa were all divided into districts with an English
Company servant in each district behaving as the Collector of that district for the collection of
revenues. The judicial scheme was integrated with this revenue collection method.

There was a basic Small Cause Adalat, set up in order deal with petty cases or disputes that
came up, and this was up to the value of Rs. 10. Within each district or Pergunnah, the head
farmer (the eldest farmer of the district) was given the duty of adjudicating and delivering
justice for these small disputes. It must be noted here that, in such a system where the person
administering justice was chosen from within a small community, there was an in-built system
of checks-and-balances. That is, there was less likelihood of the head farmer to act arbitrarily
as he had to live amongst the people he is administering justice to. Hence any act or omission
on his part was closely observed and he could be brought to task.

Above this Small causes Adalat a court known as the Mofussil Diwani Adalat was established
in each of the above districts. It was presided over by the Collector. The decisions of the court
up to the monetary value of Rs. 500 were final. This court was given the responsibility of
handling all civil cases. It handled matters such as property, marriage disputes, inheritance
related disputes, debts, contracts, settling accounts. However, this court did not handle case of
succession to Zamindari and talukdari property. This specific function was dealt with by the
Governor General and Council, only; no one else was allowed this function[iv]

With regards to what law would be followed, Hastings decided that Muslim law would be
followed for the Muslims, Hindu law for the Hindus. More specifically he stated that the Koran
would be followed for Muslims and the Shastras would followed for the Hindus. Now in order
to assist the Englishmen who acted as the collectors in administering the respective laws (as
they were unaware of the local laws being Englishmen who were barely acquainted with
English law itself as they were traders by profession and not lawyers), there were the local law
officers instituted to aid them. These law officers were the Kazis for the Muslims, and the
Pundits for the Hindus.
At the same level the Mofussil Fozdari Adalat or Mofussil Nizamat Adalat was set up. This
court was to deal with the administration of Criminal Justice. The Collector was expected to
undertake a sort of general supervision of the Adalat, seeing that equitable justice was
administered, sessions of the court were held regularly and that the judgements rendered were
impartial and not unfair. But over and above this, the Muslim law officers, the Kazis,
Muftis, and Maulavis were to interpret and apply Mohammedan Law to the cases at hand. They
were to pronounce the futwa[v] and give the judgement.

An important point to note regarding this separation of courts handling criminal and civil cases
is that it certainly maximized the efficiency of the court and aided speedy rendering of justice.
Furthermore it checked too much power being vested in one judicial institution itself.

Above these three courts were Sadar Diwani Adalat and Sadar Nizamat Adalat. The Sadar
Diwani Adalat heard appeals from the Mofussil Diwani Adalat of cases valuing over Rs. 500.
It was presided over by the Governor and the members of the council. The court fees charged
was about 5% of the value of the case for appeal, and the appeal had to be made within two
months of the decision being given by the MDA[vi]

The Sadar Nizamat Adalats main function was to:

Approve the death sentences and property forfeiture,

Re-look and if need be revise decisions of the MNA[vii] and,
For a death sentence, the warrant for such a sentence was prepared here and given to
the Nizam, who was the head of the court, for his signature.

The East India Company had only the rights of Diwani and therefore their role in criminal
judicature was minimal. It was restricted to the extent of the Governor and Council exercising
supervisory control over the courts functioning. In truth, the British had no right to administer
criminal justice as that still came under the purview of the Nizam and his assistant.

There was no need for the company to even worry about it. But due to the abhorrent nature of
the crimes committed and the lack of interest in addressing these grave injustices, the British
took this responsibility as well. The Nawab at the time was a minor, and he was more than
happy to hand over this function to the British. All the above courts were to be open courts to
promote free and fair justice. They were to maintain proper records and registers, which were
to be given to the Sadar Adalats. Also special consideration was given to tackling the problem
of dacoity. Any dacoit found could be executed in their villages, which shall be fined and their
families made slaves to the state[viii] Though this was harsh Hastings believed this would be
the best way to tackle the problem.

The most striking feature of this plan was that of the allowance of separate laws for the Hindus
and Muslims. There was also an Office of the Remembrancer; who had to compile data of all
cases at all levels in the given area where he sat ( each district). He was under the direct
supervision of the Governor-General, and he possessed records of all cases at all levels,
including the lowest of levels. If the Remembrancer found any court not functioning properly
or a case not being decided fairly, he sent a report to the Governor-General who then scrutinized
the report and the case/court. If any discrepancy was found he could ask the Nawab Naib Nazim
to ask the court to function properly, or tell the court to re-judge the case correctly

But one of the pitfalls of the plan was that there was far too much power vested in the hands of
the Collector, and this was a bad thing as the collector could misuse his powers, which would
in turn defeat the purpose of justice. In order to tackle the problem of corruption amongst the
native law officers, Warren Hastings ensured that officers were given a proper regular salary.
This was to ensure a good level of objectivity in delivering judgements that are fair and
unbiased. Which is what justice should be.

Furthermore there was a pre-set court fee amount, which was set by the government and not
the judge himself so as to ensure easily accessible justice and to prevent corruption even
amongst the judges. Also it was to ensure that the judges charge reasonable amounts and not
exorbitant rates. Another problem regarding this plan was that of the scarcity of adalats, making
justice difficult to access for the people who needed it. Taking these issues in mind, Warren
Hastings sought to improve this plan further and did so with his next set of judicial reform.

Judicial Plan of 1774

First, Warren Hastings sought to tackle the problem of paucity of the adalats to which the
people could approach. He did so by dividing the districts of Calcutta, Orissa and Bihar into
six divisions. The Division Headquarters of each division included: Calcutta, Burdwan,
Murshidabad, Dinajpore, Dacca and Patna. Each of these divisions thus consisted of several
districts. From these districts the collector was removed and a new post called the Diwan or
Amil was created. This Amil was given the functions of:

Collecting revenue, and

Presiding over the MDA[ix]

Now in each division, a Provincial Council was instituted to hear appeals from the MDA and
also to supervise collection of revenue. This provincial council comprised of four or five
EEIC[x] servants. If there was a case valued above Rs 1000, the case could be appealed from
the Provincial Council to the Sadar Diwani Adalat. This provincial council also exercised the
original jurisdiction to hear cases that arise within the limits of the town where it was seated.
So not only was it a link between the MDA and SDA by exercising appellate jurisdiction, but
it also had the power to be a court of first instance.

Another change made in this plan was that any case in the MDA presided over by the Amil
could be appealed to the Provincial Council; there was no more the pecuniary limit of the case
being above Rs. 500 to move from the MDA to the SDA[xi]

Another major reform of this plan was that of the signing of the death warrants. Earlier the
Nizam had to sign the warrant (according to the plan of 1772). Due to the time taken to get this
warrant signed and the fact that the Nizam rarely attended his work, Warren Hastings managed
to convince the Nizam to delegate this function of signing the warrant to his Deputy, the
Daroga-Adalat-Al-Alia, and to further allow the governor, to supervise the functioning of the
Daroga.

This judicial plan however, was not without its flaws. Hastings himself foretold the corruption
and the internal destruction that would be created due to the existence of the Provincial Council.
He reasoned that the collector according to the plan of 1772 was a petty officer, who if he
committed any such fraudulent practices could be checked by his seniors. But the provincial
council was made up of fairly senior officers of the EIC, and little could be said or done to stop
them from misusing their powers.[xii]
Lord Cornwallis
Lord Cornwallis was the first Governor-General under the new Regulating Act of 1773 (which
also allowed the creation of the Supreme Court in Calcutta). During his tenure he was able to
balance the interests of the EEIC as well as the interests of the people. He didnt just focus on
the EEICs goals, or the repayment of the loan, which the EEIC had taken from the crown. He
was able to defy the mercenary interests of the East India Company when they conflicted with
state policy[xiii] His tenure extended from 1786-1793, and this period was exceptionally
productive in terms of the number of reforms brought out to better the judicial system.

Lord Cornwallis, introduced reforms in all spheres possible, in civil and criminal judicature,
in re-organising the districts and introducing for the first time the principle of administration
according to the law[xiv]. His contributions to the existing judicial system can broadly be
classified under the following three judicial plans:

Judicial Plan of 1787

Judicial Plan of 1790
Judicial Plan of 1793

Judicial Plan of 1787

The main area that was emphasized during this period was economy. This was because the East
India Company was in the process of repaying a loan to the crown. So any money that could
be used for this was eagerly sought and a lot of cost cutting measures were taken. The plan of
1787 was introduced through two regulations.

8th June 1787, which dealt with revenue administration,

27th June 1787, which dealt with the administration of justice.

Lord Cornwallis wanted to achieve fair justice. The only way in his opinion to do this was to
increase the salaries of the collectors by further reducing the number of districts from 36 to 23.
Another stipulation was that each of these districts would have a collector. This Collector
would be in charge of collecting revenue and administering justice. He would be a servant of
the East India Company. There was a separate tribunal created to handle any revenue related
disputes called the Mal Adalat and the Collector presided over this court. Furthermore he would
also preside over the Mofussil Diwani Adalat, for all the civil matters that arose.

With regard to criminal judicature, he would function as the Magistrate (the person who took
cognisance of the criminal affairs), in order to issue warrants for peoples arrest in order to be
able to send them to the Mofussil Nizamat Adalat. But despite this, the collector could not sit
for all the cases all the time. The collector was given the allowance of meting out punishments
of up to 15 days imprisonment or 15 strokes or both.

With regard to the Sadar Diwani Adalat, the Governor-General and council presided over it.
The Chief Kazi, Chief Mufti and 2 Maulavis for cases, where Muslim law was to be applied,
aided them. And where cases where Hindu law was to be applied, the Governor-General and
Council were to be aided by Pundits.

A new office of the Registrar was created for petty civil cases for cases less than Rs. 200. But
the registrars judgement was given only on the approval of the Collector. The Supreme Court
of Calcutta dealt with British nationals directly, but if there was a criminal case against the
Britisher, a complaint could be lodged with the magistrate. The magistrate would then issue a
warrant for his arrest, after which he would verify the existence of a valid claim against the
Britisher.

If the claim was valid, the person and the injured party along with all the evidence were sent to
the Supreme Court at Calcutta. But if no such case was there against the Britisher, the case was
dismissed then and there. Other Europeans were equated with the Indian natives, and were
therefore denied direct access to the Supreme Court in Calcutta. They had to go through the
normal court system or hierarchy followed by the Indians.

This plan was highly inefficient as it was set up in such a manner that it was bound to fail. The
collector was vested with too much power, so much so that he was over-worked. Secondly the
chances of him misusing his power were very high. Another problem was that of the
overlapping criminal and civil judicature.
Judicial Plan of 1790

This plan aimed at changing the system of courts followed and the laws implemented in the
criminal justice system. Also a new hierarchy of courts was established. It was a Three-Limbs
type of arrangement. At the lowest level was the Magistrate in the districts. Above this was the
Court of Circuit and then finally the Sadar Nizamat Adalat. The Governor-General and Council
presided over the SDA aided by Muslim law officers (Kazis and Muftis). It was to meet once
a week. The trials referred to the Sadar Adalat were to be reviewed by the Muslim law officers
who would provide the fatwa, which was then presented to the Sadar Nizamat Adalat for the
final sentence.

Regarding the Court of Circuit, it was composed of two company servants, and was established
in every division. The court was not a stationary court but a court that moved from district to
district, bringing justice to the people. There were two-goal deliveries annually-from the
1st March and 1st October. The court was to visit each district twice a year to dispose of criminal
cases. The Muslim law officers could now be removed only by the Governor General and
council due to misconduct (in order to give security of tenure for them to ensure their loyalty
and efficiency).

The collector in each district still acted as magistrate, but now he was to arrest the accused
person and then hold an inquiry into the circumstances of the case. Should any discrepancy be
there, and the accused person was really guilty, the collector could keep this person in his
custody, pending the arrival of the Court of Circuit. (or release him on bail) The collector had
to keep all the information and evidence ready for the court of circuit to give the
judgement. The office of the Remembrancer was abolished.

Judicial Plan of 1793

This plan entailed a complete restructuring of the judicial system. It brought in more
accountability into the system. Also it marked a great reduction in the number of courts. Let us
take a close look at the points stipulated under this plan:

1. Re-organisation of the Mofussil Diwani Adalat- the collector was no longer involved
in the administration of justice. A civil servant of the English East India Company took
his place for this function and his job was restricted to solely revenue collection. The
 administration of Revenue disputes was given to the Mofussil Diwani Adalat. The Mal
Adalat was abolished.
2. All cases had to be dealt in Open Court[xv]. There could be no correspondence of any
sort between the judges and any of the parties involved in the case.
3. The Approach to Justice- everybody had the right to approach the court either
personally or through a Vakeel[xvi]. This move simply showed the modernisation in
the seeking of justice. There were a codified set of rules for court procedure to be
followed in court, which were followed. All cases approaching the Mofussil Diwani
Adalat were barred by limitation after 12 years.
4. Executive under the Judicial Control- No member of the English East India Company
or member of the executive had any sort of extinguishment of liability whatsoever.
They did not have any such immunity from being tried under the law.
5. The distinction between British and Indians was limited- if the case was less than the
amount of Rs.500 the British could be tried in the Mofussil Diwani Adalat.
6. Cases valued up to Rs. 50 were be dealt by the Munsifs, who were native landlords or
other such important farmers. They were not given any formal salary. And 1 Anna of
every Rupee was given as Commission to them. The Registrars court heard cases up
to the value of Rs. 200.

Impact of Judicial Policies of the British Era on the

Current Judicial System in India
The Laws

The judicial system as we know it today, did not unexpectedly appear post independence from
the British regime.[xvii] It evolved largely due to the impetus and working of the British
administration, whose motives for laying the foundation for our legal system were admittedly
not for our own management, but for their own ease where justice and law and order were
concerned. One of the primary concerns for the British rulers was that there were semantic and
cultural differences in this country that were far beyond their understanding. Each religion had
its own peculiar way for dealing with the same kind of offences, ranging from very severe to
very lenient. Women and children were rarely even protected by these ways. There was also
no standard per say for:
 1. Evidence gathering/recording
2. Admissibility of Evidence
3. Procedures to be followed while meeting out justice
4. Qualifications as to who could arbitrate disputes
5. What parameters and laws would apply while resolving disputes
6. What, if any, were the exceptions to these laws and parameters

It became clear, very early on, that because of Indias religious and cultural diversity, the
British had a very complicated task where deciding which law to apply and to whom. They had
to create a system that would ensure justice, while ensuring that there is no offence is caused
to the customs and religious sentiments of the party to the dispute, or his/her community. Lord
Hastings plans were very successful in this regard as they maintained the societal equilibrium
desired by the British; it became easier to administer Hindu law to Hindus, and Muslim law to
Muslims, and thus ensured that India could be ruled smoothly without any major upset.

This was not enough to tackle the defects of our highly unorganised judicial system, where
justice was usually served by the King or the local village head or in most cases, the religious
leader. In the years 1780 and 1872, the doctrine of equity, good conscience and justice was
added to the Judicial systems of Bombay, Madras and Punjab respectively. Later, via the
Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, as under Section 6, this doctrine was made the standard for
adjudication of disputes in all provinces of the British Indian empire, whereby Judges would
use their reasoning and logic and moral conscience along with the relevant personal law (Hindu
or Muslim or the like) in deciding the dispute.[xviii] Where the cases in India were appealed
and would reach the English Courts, such as the Privy Council, they too were to pay heed to
Indian customs and traditions when deciding the issues.[xix]

There was no standard in the judgments passed and the concept of precedents (stare
decisis) was highly diluted because each court gave its own decision based on the advices of
the religious advisor, in order to maintain peace. More often than not, the judgments were
unfair and some were even patently arbitrary, being made according to the whims of the
advisor. This is why the British felt the need to create some standard. They did so by codifying
existing practices and customs into one document and then formally enacting it as a law.

These documents were prepared by a learned Law Commission, which was first created under
the Charter Act of 1833. The first Law Commission was duly created in 1835, with its control
under the Governor-General of India.[xx] Some of the contributions of the four pre-
independence law commissions of India were:

1. First Law Commission, though largely unsuccessful, managed to begin to codify what
is the Indian Penal Code today.
2. Second Law Commission completed the codification of the Penal Code, and went on
to codify the Civil Procedure Code, Law of Limitation, and the Criminal Procedure
Codes, as we know them today.[xxi]
3. Third Law Commission started off by drafting a code for succession & inheritance for
Indians who were not Hindus or Muslims. They then moved on to revise the Criminal
Procedure Code suggested by the earlier commission. It then drafted the Contract Law,
Negotiable instruments law, Insurance Law, Evidence Law, and Property Law that we
use today.[xxii]
4. Fourth Law Commission made revisions to both the Civil Procedure and the Criminal
Procedure Codes, while also codifying the law on Negotiable Instruments and Transfer
of Property & Easements Laws. They also drafted a code on Trusts Law.

The Court Structure

The Court structure that we have today, in addition to the actual laws itself are greatly due to
the efforts of the British Government. Their motives for creating such a large system that has
continued to exist well after independence may not have been the most noble; it is however
impossible to deny or discount their presence in our legal system today. What existed prior to
the modifications and consolidations by the British hand, was a largely unorganised area which
gave decisions that were neither fair, nor could be brought to scrutiny via any standard. The
very enactments of the British legislature in India are to be credited for the setting up of a
definite court structure.

The following points summarize the exact evolution of the current hierarchy of courts, in the
form that they existed prior to Independence:[xxiii]

The Regulating Act, 1773: In 1773, the King promulgated the Regulating Act, 1773,
which posited the setting up of a Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta. The Letters
Patent Appeal was issued in 1774 and this new court was made a court of record with
 the power to hear all matters and pass orders and judgments for the same. The Supreme
Courts at Madras and Bombay were set up in 1800 and 1823 respectively.[xxiv]
The High Courts Act, 1861: With this Act, the Supreme Courts were abolished and in
their place, High Courts were established at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. They had
the status of being the Highest Courts in the respective Provinces.
The Federal Court of India: Under the Government of India Act, 1935, the High Courts
continued their existence. The only difference was that they were made subordinate to
one main Court namely the Federal Court of India. This Court adjudicated and
resolved conflicts between the High Courts of different provinces and settled points of
law that were in doubt. It was also empowered to resolve disputes between the
provinces itself.

Post Independence the Constitution of India, has a similar hierarchy, with the Supreme Court
on top (replacing the Federal Court of India) and the various state High Courts (replacing the
Provincial High Courts), with various other courts under the High Courts.

Conclusion
During British rule, it can be said that India went through a great deal of experimentation and
empirical learning. Many courts were created and then abolished and replaced with new
mechanisms to resolve disputes. The British rule in India, had some very positive impacts on
our legal system, and the manner in which we administer justice:

Rule of law along with the importance of an independent judiciary were introduced
through the British regime. The concept of separation of powers was enunciated and
enhanced in India through their laws and policies.
The federal form of governance, vis a vis the Provinces, and the Provincial Courts
with the Federal Court as the final authority, was brought into India.
The administration of justice even at district level, was a concept introduced by the
British. They increased the access to justice, permeating its reach to the smallest parts
of the country.
Through the Law Commissions India finally had a definite set of laws that could be
applied uniformly.[xxv]
The real effect was felt post-independence through our Constitution laws. However, this idea
of a fair and impartial system where the judiciary was independent from the other organs of
state, came to India only via the British. The legal system that existed when the British came
to India, was in great need of reform and thus the British gave our legal system the much needed
change. Through their experimentation, the Constituent Assembly was able to see what new
practices and what old Ancient practices could be could be coupled to form our new legal
system after independence.

It is therefore concluded that the contributions of the British are so important that the very
existence of our judiciary and legal system can be credited to them. The true impact of the
British efforts can thus be summarised by saying that they revamped our legal system to make
it fairer and more accessible to all citizens.

Edited by Umang Dixit

[i] Prof. M. P. Jain, Outlines of Indian Legal & Constitutional History, (6th Edition), Ch 7, Pg
54.

[ii] English East India Company.

[iii] http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Warren_Hastings.aspx.

[iv] M. P. Jain, Outlines of Indian Legal and Constitutional History, (6th Edition) Pg 57.

[v] Futwa is the Urdu word denoting the law applicable to the circumstances of the case. It was
to be according to Mohammedan law.

[vi] Mofussil Diwani Adalat.

[vii] Mofussil Nizamat Adalat.

[viii] M. P. Jain, Outlines of Indian Legal and Constitutional History, (6th Edition) Pg 59.

[ix] Mofussil Diwani Adalat.

[x] English East India Company.

[xi] Sadar Diwani Adalat.

[xii] M. P. Jain, Outlines of Indian Legal and Constitutional History, (6th Edition) Pg 61.

[xiii] http://www.indianetzone.com/39/lord_cornwallis_indian_governor_general.htm.

[xiv] M. P. Jain, Outlines of Indian Legal and Constitutional History, (6th edition), Pg 119.

[xv] In full view of the public to increase accountability and reduce malpractices in serving
justice to the people.

[xvi] A person with full legal knowledge equivalent to a lawyer in present day terms.

[xvii] S.D. Sharma, Administration of Justice in Ancient India, New Delhi: Harman Publishing
House, 1988, p.170.

[xviii] See link: http://realityviews.blogspot.in/2010/12/part-34-indian-legal-history-charter-

of.html.

[xix] See the cases of Khwaja Muhammad khan vs Husaini Begum, (1910) 12 BOMLR 638
and Srinath Roy vs Dinabandhu Sen, (1914) 16 BOMLR 901.

[xx] As stipulated in the Charter Act of 1833.

[xxi] Eugen Lang, Maurice. Codification In The British Empire And America. Lawbook
Exchange. pp. 7892. ISBN 978-1-58477-620-8.

[xxii] Char, S. V., Desika (1983). Readings in the constitutional history of India, 1757-1947.
Delhi: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-561264-7.

[xxiii] Supreme Court Summary of the Evolution of the Judiciary,

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supct/scm/m2.pdf (visited on October 1, 2014).

[xxiv] Id. at 23.

[xxv] Dyanesh Kumar, Essay on the Impact of British Rule on Indian Administration, (Sep, 27,
2011), http://www.preservearticles.com/2011092714107/essay-on-the-impact-of-british-rule-
on-indian-administration.html.