Page 61 - DHIS204_DHIS205_INDIAN_FREEDOM_STRUGGLE_HINDI

Indian Freedom Struggle (1707–1947 A.D.)

Notes an hierarchy of courts, both for civil and criminal cases. In the district, at the lowest rung of the
ladder were the Munsiff’s Courts presided over by Indian officers competent to decide cases involving
disputes up to 50 rupees; next came the Registrars’ Courts presided over by European officers which
tried cases upto 200 rupees; appeals from these courts lay to the District or City Courts. Appeals from
District (Zilla) Courts lay to the four Provincial Courts. Next in order of gradation were the Sadar
Diwani Adalat and Sadar Nizamat Adalat. In certain Diwani cases appeals could also be made to the
Privy Council in England. The Cornwallis Code of 1793 gave the final shape to the judicial system
which continued without many changes for long.

4.3 Police Reforms

To supplement and implement the judicial reforms important changes were introduced in the police
administration. In Calcutta itself a state of near lawlessness prevailed and ruffians and bad characters
went unpunished. In many streets people passed after sunset only at the peril of their lives. “The
outskirts of Calcutta had more the appearance of a jungle than an inhabited town,” remarked a Police
Superintendent. Even the Police Superintendents were corrupt. The Regulation of 1791 defined the
powers of the Police Superintendent. To induce the police officials to act honestly and with promptitude
Cornwallis raised the salaries of all police officers and offered good rewards for the discovery and
arrests of burglars and murderers.
In the districts the zamindars were deprived of all police powers and they were no longer to be
considered responsible for robberies committed in their estates unless their complicity could be proved.
The English magistrates were given control of the district police. Each district was divided into areas
of 400 square miles and each area placed under the charge of a Police Superintendent assisted by an
establishment of constables.
The Rule of Law: The British deserve the credit for having introduced in India the modern concept of
the rule of law. This meant the end of arbitrary authority exercised by the earlier rulers of India. A
person could now know his rights and privileges and a set procedure was laid down for asserting
them. However, in actual practice many instances of interference with the rights and provileges of
the individuals took place. All the same, an opportunity was provided for bringing officers guilty of
breach of law to the court.
1. Equality before Law: In the eyes of law all men were considered equal, irrespective of their religion,
caste or class. This meant the end of the earlier practice of varying the law according to the class
and status of the person, say between a Brahmin or a non-Brahmin or between a zamindar and a
peasant. Henceforth, under British administration, the humblest of the humble could move the
court for his legitimate rights. In actual practice, however, the principle of equality before law was
violated when laws became complicated and beyond the grasp of uneducated poor masses; they
had to engage lawyers who charged excessive fees and preferred to work for the rich; in addition,
the prevalence of corruption in the administrative machinery and the police worked against the
rights of the masses.
2. Recognition of Personal Civil Law: The Company’s authorities recognised the rights of the various
Indian communities — Hindu, Muslim, Parsi or Christian — to be judged by law of their
community, particularly in matters connected with marriage, adoption, of joint family matters
like succession and partition of property.
3. Growth of trained judicial officers and professional lawyers: In pre-British times, the landlords
and the rulers played a notable role in deciding judicial disputes. In contrast, under Company’s
rule, written law (and later codified law) promoted confidence in the judicial system. The emergence
of a professional class of lawyers trained to defend the rights of their clients augured in the modern
system if judicial administration (of course, with all its limitations).
The Company’s judicial system was praised because it was based on the principle of sovereignty
of law, introduction of codified secular law and Western concept of justice. However, it produced
many undesirable effects. The novel, unfamiliar and elaborate system was beyond the
comprehension of the common man who could not hope for quick and cheap justice. Falsehood,
chicanery and deceit began to yield dividends. Litigation increased and the professional lawyers

56 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY