The judicial system in madras occurs in three stages where the British tried their best to administer justice in the town. The company first formed a judicial structure in the towns to help the Englishmen living in the town and to secure justice for them. But slowly the company acquired a large area where they could not neglect the indigenous population anymore thus this lead to the development of a through judicial systems. Madras was previously known as a Madraspatnam which was a small village. Francis Day was sent south by the East India Company to acquire land due to the shortage of cotton in the north and to ease the trade. Francis Day procured a land grant for the area of Madraspatnam after negotiations with the Raja of Chandragiri to build a factory in 1639. The land was used to build the Fort of St George. The Raja had also granted to the Company full power. the charter of 1660, This allows the company to form laws in accordance to the English laws for its government. The charter gave the Company power to make laws for its government and for that of the factors, masters and mariners employed in voyages, provided such laws were not repugnant to the laws of England. The town of Madraspatnam was divided into white town and black town.
The Town of Madras was subordinate to the town of Surat. The administrative head on the town was called as an “Agent “. The agent was a subordinate to the president of the factory in Surat. He was supposed to administer justice in the town. The serious offenders and the cases should be consulted by the company authorities in England. But there were defects the judicial power of the agent and the council was vague and indefinite and many delays also, they did not have any. The black town had a different system of administration of justice. The old tradition of the judicial system was allowed to continue where the village headman was to judge all cases of the village. The village headman was called as “Adigar”; the court was called as the Choultry court. Then the Choultry court became a court where petty cases would be decided. The most cases were decided by the agent and his council or the raja. There is no conclusive report where these cases were held due to lack of reports. But the existing reports show that there wasn’t a clear system that was followed. The officers in the Choultry court were not similar to the laws of the natives. This shows that the judicial system was rudimentary.
Chapter 1660, This empowered the governor and his council to authorize or give death penalties and death sentences for capital offences. The charter vested more powers in the Governor-General and his council which gave them extensive judicial powers. The agent and the council uncertain about their jurisdiction and their judicial duties deferred the case to the company authorities in England. The company made the town of Madras a presidency town. This gave extensive judicial power to the agent and his council who were elevated to the position of the governor-general and his council. The court of judicature, Steynsham Master who was the Governor of Madras reorganize the Choultry Court and established a court of judicature in 1678 for the trial of civil and criminal cases by jury deriving authority from the charter of 1661 which vested all judicial powers to the governor-general and his council. The court would take in appeals by the Choultry courts. The cases in the court were decided as per the English laws with the help of jury of 12 men. The Governor and Council were to have original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction in cases decided by, the Choultry Court. Thus a well-administered judicial system was implemented. This established two courts and well-understood jurisdiction of cases. There were pitfalls in this system too. The officers who sat at the court were not lawyers or familiar with the laws of the native land. The officers would not dispense justice at a higher level as they were not lawyers. The judgment of the cases was subpar but this was a step ahead from the previous court system. This much-needed improvement from the elementary implementation of justice that was previously administered in the town. The lack of lawyers was apparent.
Admiralty court– Under the provisions of the Charter of 1683 a new court was established in Madras on 10 July 1686. It was called the admiralty court. The court was to decide cases according to the rules of equity and a good conscience and the laws and customs of merchants. It has to have the power to hear and determine all cases, mercantile and maritime in nature, concerning persons within the charter limits of the Company; all cases of trespasses, injuries and wrongs, done or committed on the high seas, or within the charter limits; cases of forfeitures and seizures of ships or goods. The court practised English civil law instead of the common law in England as the jurisdiction of the court was extended to ships from different countries. The civil law that’s was used was an amalgamation of the maritime customary laws. The court in 1687 secured services of an English professional lawyer, Sir John Briggs who would preside over the court as written in the charter. The presence of a lawyer decreased the need for the governor-general and his council to sit at the court. Thus the role of the governor-general and his council in the court declined. The court of admiralty exercised wide jurisdiction as opposed to what was stated in the charter. The establishment of the Admiralty court was a landmark in the judicial history of Madras as for the first time a professional lawyer was to administer justice and the executive gave up judicial functions in the admiralty court.
Mayor’s court– It was common and custom in England that the judicial powers would be deferred to Municipal Corporation of the city, this was seen in London. The British thought to apply the same administration in Madras. The corporation of Madras consisted of a mayor, 12 Alderman and 60 Burgesses. Every year the mayor was selected by the Alderman. The tenure was for life or the period of stay in Madras. The first mayor and the 12 Alderman were already selected by the charter itself. The Burgesses were to be selected by the Mayor and the alderman. The court was held every fortnight and the quorum was the Mayor and two aldermen. There was an existence of a jury who convened to judge criminal cases. The Mayor’s Court dispensed justice not according to any fixed law, but as its Charter laid down.
The judicial administration in madras during 1639-1726 was elementary. Justice was administered by non-lawyers. Their judgment was subpar and at their discretion. They had no judicial training and very much vested in the executive decisions of the company. When the company first procured Madras their focal point was still trading. Thus the earlier stages of the judicial system in Madras were rudimentary and no proper demarcation of jurisdiction. The officers were not familiar with the Hindu laws which were applied to the Hindu native and the Muslim laws that were applied to the Muslim natives, this lead to major inconsistent judgment. The situation changed after 1687 when there was an introduction of some sort of structure to the judicial system. The charter of 1688 showed signs of freedom of the judiciary from the executive powers but installation of the Mayor’s court changed that. Yet, the judicial system introduced a democratic structure to India where the autocratic rule was used.
Track2Training 