The Administration of Justice in Madras in the Seventeenth Century
Posted by Law Matters on 5/23/06 • Categorized as History,Primers
The administration of justice in Madras in the seventeenth century can, by and large, be divided into two periods – that between1639 and 1665, and that between 1665 and 1687.
Francis Day acquired a piece of land from a Hindu Raja in 1639. The Company built a Fort on it and called it Fort St. George. The Raja also granted the Company the power and the authority to govern a nearby village called Madraspatam.
Madras, as it came to be known, was an amalgamation of Madraspatam or Black Town where the Indians lived and Fort St George or White Town where the British lived. It was an ‘Agency’ which was subordinate to Surat, the only Presidency of the time. It was headed by an Agent who had a Council to assist him.
During the first period between1639 and 1665, the administration of justice was neither systematic nor regular. For example, when, in 1641, an Indian was accused of murdering a woman he was living with, no formal trial was held. A few questions were asked and the woman’s clothes and jewellery was (not too surprisingly) found in his house. That was deemed to be enough to condemn him, and the Agent communicated his findings to the Raja. The Raja ordered punishment to be inflicted according to English law – the condemned man was hanged to death.
In White Town, it was administered by the Agent in Council who not only had vague and indefinite powers but who also hesitated to use what powers he had in serious criminal cases which were therefore referred to England.
In Black Town, the British did not even initially attempt to administer justice. The allowed the traditional Choultry Courts to function without interference. In these courts, village headmen (known as Adigaars) acted as judges and tried minor civil and criminal offences.
However, in 1652, Adigaar Kanappa was dismissed. He was apparently corrupt and, among other things, connived to steal children and sell them as slaves. He was replaced by two British servants of the Company who tried petty cases – there is no record of the establishment of any Court which could try cases beyond the competence of the Choultry Court.
It was only in time that the British became more comfortable with using the judicial powers they had been granted.
A major change was heralded by the case of Mrs A Dawes in 1665. The Agent and Council were uncertain of how to handle her case, so they referred the matter to the Company in England. In response to this, the Company made Madras a Presidency and raised the status of the Agent to a Governor so that the Charter of 1661 which conferred wide judicial powers on the Governor and Council – but not on the Agent and Council – could be made operational in Madras.
This Charter empowered the Governor and Council to try not only Britons but also all those who lived in the settlement. In theory, English law was to be administered but since the Governor and Council knew no law, this did not happen and the quality of the administration of justice was poor.
Justice also took a long time to be administered because of delays while consulting Company authorities in England. For example, there is a record of a case dated January 31, 1678, of an Englishman who languished as a pre-trial for 31 months. Although he was accused of killing another Englishman, he was ultimately found guilty of manslaughter in self-defence and his goods and chattels were forfeited to the King.
Streynsham Master who was the Governor between 1667 and 1681 tried to improve the situation.
The High Court of Judicature comprising the Governor and Council which was to sit for two days a week was finally established in 1678. It was formed to try criminal cases and major civil cases, and had original jurisdiction in matters beyond the powers of the Choultry Court which was reorganized at the same time. It also had appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Choultry Court.
The reorganization of the Choutry Court did away with the traditional system and replaced Adigaars with servants of the company: the mint master, the pay master and the customer or any two of them. It had jurisdiction to try minor misdemeanors, matters of peace, civil matters involving less than 50 pagodas (or more if the parties involved gave their consent thereto).
With the reorganization of the judicial system, the administration of justice in Madras came to be on a much firmer footing.
References: Outlines of Indian Legal History, M P Jain; Indian Courts, K Rai; A Chronicle of British Indian Legal History, A Hamid