Mayors Court in India (Charter of 1687, 1726 and 1753)

This presentation delves into the historical evolution of the Mayor's Court in India, focusing on the significant Charters of 1726 and 1753. It examines the establishment, features, and reforms of the Mayor's Court, highlighting its impact on the judicial system of British India. The presentation also discusses the eventual abolition of the Mayor's Court and the establishment of the Supreme Court of Judicature. Join me in this educational journey to enhance my communication and speaking skills. Your support and feedback are greatly appreciated.

1. Mayors Court

2. Charter of 1726: (King George I) (Applied in all Presidencies) Improvement of Judicial System PERSONAL LAWS ESTABLISHED IN JUDICIARY (Hindu/Muslim) Background: No proper law in exercising judicial power before. Justice was based on laws of the Company. Only English law was practiced, and personal laws were ignored. British Crown started their influence in company affairs in India and claimed authority. Company got anxious, and their people were suppressed by the Crown. There was no uniformity (Stability). Criminal, Civil, and other Jurisdictions were seized by the British. Directors of the EIC filed a petition to King George I that some courts need to be changed.

3. Features of Charter of 1726: Discrimination against the native people came to an end. Revival of Mayor’s Court with some modifications and Admiralty Court was abolished. Mayor's Courts were subordinated to the Governor and Council. Provisions: Appointment of 2 mayors (judges) and 9 aldermen (jury). Tenure: 1 year (Mayor) Aldermen were lifelong and could only be removed by the Governor and Council. Starting 1st Mayor, Governor and Council would appoint, and then 9 aldermen would vote for Mayor amongst them.

4. Features: Court of Record Entire Civil Jurisdiction Testamentary (Violation of an instrument or document). Court used to sit 3 times a week Proper Administration was established. Appointment of legal heirs by issuing letters. Company Jurisdiction 1000 Pagoda +++ then goes to Privy Council also known as Kings in Council

5. 1000 Pagoda +++ then goes to Privy Council also known as Kings in Council SHERIFF used to punish criminals G and C appoint separate judges for criminal, and there was a jury. Still followed English law in criminal practice. Natives were governed by Personal Laws. Court of Requests was established in each presidency town Civil cases up to 5 pagoda (Currency). Exceeding these would go to Mayor’s Court. Objective: Fast and quick justice Consisted of 8 to 24 Commissioners (3 used to sit once a week).

6. Old Mayors Court 1687 New Mayor’s Court 1726 Charter of 1687: Company’s Court Madras  Civil, Crim and Testamentary  Admiralty Court (Maritime) (Appeals)  Indian Judges  Recorders who had knowledge of law and used to help in complex matters.  EQUITY and GOOD CONSICIOUS and ignore technical aspect  No separation of Judiciary and EXECUTIVE Charter of 1726: British Crown BMC  Civil, Crim and Testamentary  Appeals: G in C and then K in C (privy)  No Indian Judges  No Recorders   ONLY ENGLISH LAW   Judiciary mostly in hands of G in C

7. Merits of Charter of 1726: Uniformity ROYAL COURT INTRODUCED (Privy Council) Proper procedure of judicature Crown’s Court Consequences of Charter of 1726: G and C sovereign (they had power to rule over Mayor’s Court) Appeals heard from Mayor's Court while their duty didn’t go hand in hand with judiciary. LIMITED Jurisdiction. No proper lawyers. There were laymen and not lawmen. No proper Separation of Executive and Judiciary. No Indian representation. Usage of more English Law.

8. Charter of 1753 (George II) Background: French occupied Madras. In 1749 French surrendered to British. Mayor’s Court was reestablished in Madras and Bombay and Calcutta Reconsider the defects of the previous system and George II made changes. Provisions of Charter of 1753: Appointment of Aldermen and Mayors by Governor and Council. Aldermen suggest 2 people who will become the next Mayor. Evidence-based practice. Witnesses take oath etc.

9. The Charter of 1753: Reforms introduced The Charter of 1753 introduced several reforms aimed at addressing the shortcomings of the judicial system established by the Charter of 1726 in British India. The composition of the Mayor's Courts was restructured to include more experienced and legally knowledgeable members. The number of Aldermen was increased, and provisions were made to ensure that they had some degree of legal training or experience in judicial matters. The Charter clarified the jurisdiction of the Mayor’s Courts, delineating their authority over civil and criminal matters more precisely. It addressed ambiguities in the previous charter, reducing conflicts with other local courts and authorities.

10. The reforms aimed to improve access to justice for Indians by allowing them to bring cases to the Mayor's Courts more easily. The Charter emphasized the need for a more professional judiciary, encouraging the recruitment and training of qualified legal personnel. It reduced the influence of untrained British merchants in judicial matters, enhancing the overall quality of judicial decisions. The reforms led to a more efficient and reliable judicial system, addressing many of the administrative and procedural inefficiencies of the previous system. The presence of a professional Recorder and better-trained Aldermen contributed to more consistent and fair judgments. The reforms helped to increase the legitimacy of the Mayor’s Courts in the eyes of both British and Indian residents. Improved access to justice and procedural fairness contributed to greater trust in the colonial legal system.

11. Criticism of the Charter 1753: The Charter primarily focused on the presidency towns of Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta, leaving the vast majority of rural and semi-urban areas outside. It did not significantly extend the judicial reach to the broader Indian population, maintaining a focus on British subjects. The reforms continued to impose English legal principles and ignored the local Indian legal system. Despite the introduction of a professional Recorder, the majority of the Aldermen were still drawn from the mercantile community with limited legal expertise. The professionalization of the judiciary was only partially achieved. The judicial system remained heavily reliant on British personnel, limiting opportunities for qualified Indians. Although the Charter aimed to simplify legal procedures, many aspects of English law remained complex and inaccessible to the average Indian litigant.

12. Language barriers and unfamiliarity with English legal terminology continued to disadvantage Indian plaintiffs and defendants. The judicial reforms were perceived to favor British commercial interests, particularly in matters of trade and property disputes. Decisions often reflected a bias towards protecting the economic interests of British merchants and companies at the expense of Indian traders and landowners. The imposition of a foreign legal system disrupted traditional dispute resolution mechanisms and local governance structures. The erosion of indigenous legal institutions contributed to social instability. The reforms were seen as a means to strengthen colonial control and consolidate British authority in the presidency towns. The judicial system became an instrument of colonial governance, undermining the autonomy of local rulers and traditional leaders. While the Charter of 1753 introduced important reforms aimed at improving the judicial system in British India, it faced significant criticisms for its limited scope.

13. Abolition of the Mayor’s Court: The Mayor's Court, established under the Charter of 1726 in the presidency towns of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, was replaced by the Supreme Court of Judicature following the Regulating Act of 1773. Reasons for Abolition: Inadequate Legal Framework: The Mayor's Court's jurisdiction was not well-defined, leading to overlaps and conflicts with other judicial and administrative bodies. The court's authority was mainly confined to the presidency towns, leaving vast areas of British-controlled territories without adequate judicial oversight. Ineffective Administration:

14. Thank you