PATNA CASE

(a) Case Commentary on Patna case:

The years 1777, 1778 and 1779 witnessed an important event known as PATNA
CASE which attracted great public attention and the part played by the supreme
court in the matter came in for a lot of adverse criticism. It also revealed the system
of the judicial administration.

FACTS: Shahbaz Beg Khan , a native of Kabul, came to India and became a
soldier in the company’s army, gathered a considerable fortune, and settled at
patna. He had no issue and therefore he called his nephew bahadur beg from Kabul
to live with him.He expressed a desire to adopt bahadur beg and to hand over his
property to him but before he could do so Shehbaz died in 1776. Thereafter a
struggle ensued for property between bahadur beg and shehbaz widow nadirah
begum. The begum claimed the entire property on the basis of gifts said to have
been executed in her favour by her late husband. Bahadur beg claimed the entire
property as the adopted son of the deceased. He filed a suit against the begum in
patna provincial council which also functioned as the diwani court for the town
under the Warren hastings plan of 1774.

ISSUES OF THE CASE: Whether Bahadur Beg, who lived outside calcutta was
exposed to the administration of Supreme Court or not. Whether the law officer's
could be litigated or indicted for their acts done during their legal proficiency or
not.

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE: The court censured the way in which the Kazi and
Mufti had represented determining realities.All the procedure in the board were ex-
parte with no I see being given to the begum. no normal preliminary was held and
witnesses had not been analyzed on oath. Thus, the law officers were attempted not
for what they had done in the release of their customary capacity ,however to
something outside thereto the court had an undoubted ward over the organization
hirelings.The Supreme Court granted damages of Rupees 3 Lakhs to the dowager
which was very in proportionate.

CONCLUSION: Patna Case is one of the eminent cases in the subject of legal
history of India. It has provided us with the knowledge that during the performance
of any duty or authority given to any legal official should be exercised or
conducted within the ambit of their specified field. This case has also dealt with
such situation in which the officials were authorized by the court of law to
investigate into the matter of Nadirah Begum and Bahadur Beg to find out the
documents and other related information to the case, but during this procedure the
officials i.e Kazi and Mufti conducted bad behavior towards Nadirah Begum while
entering her house and performance of assault, battery and false imprisonment.
Accordingly by seeing all this Supreme Court gave the judgement in favor of
Nadirah Begum and these officials were charged with the Punishment of
imprisonment along with the fine of Rs. 3 Lakhs to Nadirah Begum. Over all this
mishaps, Supreme Court gave the right decision/ verdict that had maintained the
trust of citizens in judiciary.

(b) Relationships of Supreme court and Adalats:

The defects of the system set up in 1774 were seen in the Patna Case which is
concerned with the conflict between the jurisdiction of Supreme Court and
function of adalat in mofussil areas. As it was in practice those days, the Mofussil
Adalat as well as the Provincial Council employed services of Kazis and Muftis to
interpret the Muslim law. The judicial commission arrived at a decision after
taking into account the consultation of the Muftis and Kazis. Thus it became a
practice to neglect judicial work. In this case muftis and kazis were given the
power to take the evidence of the case and arrived to a decision. No established
law was followed while taking the evidence and the provincial council passed a
judgement based on the evidence collected by irregular procedure. Supreme court
held that the provincial council did not delegate its judicial decisions according to
the procedures held by the supreme court. Thus an order was passed by the
supreme court to send the wrong doers to the jail. The decisions of the supreme
court were criticized to a large extent. Followed by this the work in mofussil adalat
came to a halt because no officers in this adalat were ready to take the judicia work
as they will have to go to jail. The work of revenue collection also suffered
because most of the revenue officers left their jobs. The defect when came to the
notice of warren hastings could not continue no longer and he remedied it by
giving new judicial plan promulgated on 11 April 1780.

(c) Court procedure of arresting bahadur and law officers:

The legal issues raised in trial, which started in November 1078, were, (1) Whether
Bahadur Beg, who lived outside Calcutta was subject 10 the jurisdiction of
Supreme Court, and (2) Whether the law officers could be prosecuted for acts done
in their judicial capacity? On the first issue, the court said that Bahadur Beg was a
farmer of land revenue and he was not different from the revenue Collector and
therefore was ‘directly or indirectly in the services of the Company’. On the
second issue, the court held that although the Patna council was a legally
constituted court having jurisdiction to decide the civil disputes between the
Indians, it had no jurisdiction to delegate its functions to the law officers, the Kazi
and Muftis. The court criticised the manner in which the Kazi and Muftis had acted
for ascertaining facts. All the proceedings in the Council were ex parte without any
I notice being given to the Begum. No regular trial was held and witnesses had not
been examined on oath. Thus, the law officers were tried not for what they had
done in the discharge of their regular functions, but for something outside
thereto the court had an undoubted jurisdiction over the Company’s servants. The
Supreme Court awarded damages of Rupees 3 lakhs to the widow which was quite
inproportionate.

(d) Whether Supreme court had jurisdiction over revenue farmers:

The Patna case additionally uncovered the shortcomings of the organization legal
organization ,especially that of the sadar diwani adalat at calcutta in light of the
fact that the senator general and the individual from the gathering, who constituted
the court barely had whenever to take care of the legal work of choosing claims as
they were for the most part possessed with different works and avenging their
shared competitions. As respects the ward of the preeminent court over the
Mohammedan local law officers, it was held that these officers being in the
administration of the organization , the court had purview over them. this view has
all the earmarks of being right. be that as it may, the preeminent courts dispute that
it additionally had ward over Bahadur ask who was an agriculturist of land income
of the organization and henceforth a worker of the organization , does not have all
the earmarks of being right. the supreme courts choice in Patna case holding that
an agriculturist of land income was to be dealt with in the administration of the
organization and consequently fell inside the ward of the court, made dread and
frenzy among the local ranchers of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. along these lines this
case had an adverse affected the income winning of the organization in Bengal,
Bihar and Orissa. the weaknesses of the organization of the incomparable court and
the preeminent committee which became known through the Patna Case were,
anyway , evacuated by the death of the Act of Settlement in 1781.

(e) Court procedure of awarding compensation to the widow:

Having rejected their defence, the Supreme Court went into the merits of the
Begum's complaint. A trial accordingly to place on the whole case. The court
decided that the Begum had been treated harshly by the law officers who had
considered her as a proper object of "rapine and plunder" , that she was entitled to
the whole property as the deeds of gift in her favour by her deceased husband ,
declared to be forged by the law officers , were valid and genuine. The court
criticised the manner in which the kazi and mufti's acted for assertaining facts.
They had never met regularly and held a regular trial ; witnesses had not been
examined on oath ; notes had been sent it two witnesses and their written answers
received. This was not a law proceeding. The court held the report submitted by
these officers "not only unjust, but absurd". The court awarded damages of 3 lakh
rupees against the defendants for personal injuries to the Begum and taking away
her property. As the defendants were unable to pay such a huge amount they were
lodged in the jail where they remain till 1781 when the British Parliament came to
the rescue.

(f) Internal defects of judicial system (adalats and councils):

The Patna Council remitted the entire case to its law officers Kazis and Muftis md
required them to make an inventory of property of the deceased, to collect the
property and seal it, and according to “ascertained facts and legal justice” to
transmit to the Council a written report specifying the shares of parties. Under the
Regulations then prevailing, the law officers were neither to perform any executive
functions nor were they to concern themselves with deciding the questions of fact,
their only function was to expound the law applicable to the facts of the case. The
law officers locked and sealed the house of the deceased. The widow of the
deceased was insulted and humiliated to such an extent that she left the house and
took refuge in a mosque. They rejected her claim holding that deeds were forged.
As Muslim law does not recognise adoption, Bahadur Beg’s claim was also
rejected. The deceased’s property was thus to be divided according to the Muslim
law of intestate succession. The widow approached the Supreme Court and filed an
action against Bahadur Beg, the Kazis and Muftis for assault breaking and entering
her house and taking away her property, and claimed damages amounting to
Rupees 6 lakhs. Bahdur Beg, Kazi and Mutis were arrested and brought from Patna
to Calcutta and were lodged in prison. The legal issues raised in trial, which started
in November 1078, were, (1) Whether Bahadur Beg, who lived outside Calcutta
was subject 10 the jurisdiction of Supreme court, and (2) Whether the law officers
could be prosecuted for acts done in their judicial capacity? On the first issue, the
court said that Bahadur Beg was a farmer of land revenue and he was not different
from the revenue Collector and therefore was ‘directly or indirectly in the services
of the Company’. On the second issue, the court held that although the Patna
council was a legally constituted court having jurisdiction to decide the civil
disputes between the Indians, it had no jurisdiction to delegate its functions to the
law officers, the Kazi and Muftis. The court criticised the manner in which the
Kazi and Muftis had acted for ascertaining facts. All the proceedings in the
Council were ex parte without any I notice being given to the Begum. No regular
trial was held and witnesses had not been examined on oath. Thus, the law officers
were tried not for what they had done in the discharge of their regular functions,
but for something outside thereto the court had an undoubted jurisdiction over the
Company’s servants. The Supreme Court awarded damages of Rupees 3 lakhs to
the widow which was quite inproportionate. The Patna case brought to light the
inherent defects in the Dmpany’s judicial system (that is Adalats and Councils).
Also, the case involved he question of the Supreme Court jurisdiction and its
relationship with the officials Of the Adalats.

COSSIJURAH CASE

(a) Case Commentary on Cossijurah case:

The conflicts between the supreme court and the Supreme council reached a
climax in this case. While the Supreme court issued orders to the sheriff to use
force in order to carry out its orders, the supreme council ordered its troops to
defend the implementation of its orders. The Supreme court also claimed its
jurisdiction over the whole native population which was opposed by the supreme
council. Due to these peculiarities this case is of great historical importance. The
SC issued a writ of Capias for the Raja’s arrest. He therefore filed a civil suit
against the Raja of Cossijurah in the Supreme Court at Calcutta. Though Cossinaut
Babu tried to recover the money from the Raja, his efforts were in vain. Raja
Sundernarain, zamindar of Cossijurah (Kasijora) was under a heavy debt to
Cossinaut Babu (Kashinath).

FACTS :The Raja was also specially informed by the council and therefore his
people drove away the sheriff of the SC when that official came with a writ to
arrest Raja Of Cossijurah. The council issued a notification informing all the
landholders that they need not pay attention to the process of the Supreme Court
unless they were either servants of the company or had accepted the courts
jurisdiction by their own consent. Being afraid Raja avoided service of the writ by
hiding himself. In the meantime the Governor General and Council directed
Colonel Ahmuty Commander of the armed forces to detach sufficient force to
intercept and arrest Sherif with his Party and release Raja. The Englishmen
imprisoned the Raja and its said that they outraged the sanctity of the family idol
and entered into the Zenana. The SC issued another writ of sequestration on 12th
November 1779 to seize the property of Raja’s house in order to compel him to
appear in the SC.

CONFLICT: Later on they were sent to Calcutta as prisoners, Council released the
Sheriff’s party and directed Colonel Ahmuty to release any further writ of the SC.
On 3rd December 1779 sheriff and his party was arrested and was kept in
confinement for 3 days

LATER DEVELOPMENTS: . Cossinaut Babu brought an action against the

Governor General and the members of the council individually. The G.G and
councilors refused to appear before the court as the act was during their official
capacity. The Council declared that persons in Bengal, out of Calcutta need not
submit to the court and assured that even with the use of armed forces they’ll
protect the interests of the natives. As the members of the council were not served
the writ, the SC took an action against North Naylor, Attorney General of the of
the Company. He was committed to prison and no bail was accepted because the
punishment was regarded ‘exemplary’. The Judges and members of SC grew angry
and felt insulted. Army officials refused to allow the SC’s officials to serve the writ
to the members of the Council. While considering the case Justice Impey
commented “That if they thought themselves not amenable to the court, they ought
to plead to the jurisdiction or demur to the plaint; and if they were discontent with
our Judgements, the Charter had given them a remedy by appeal”. Though no
action was taken against the members of the council, they were not exempted from
the civil action. On 12th march, 1780 the plaintiff, coossunaut Babu, withdrew his
suit against G.G and council and Raja of Cossijurah. The conflict between the
council and court increased. No one was ready for compromise. The SC would not
allow the Councilors to withdraw their appearances but it had no force to compel
their appearance.

(b) Role of Raja Sundar Narayan and Kashinath Babu:

One Zamindar, the Rajah of Cossijurah was heavily indebted to Cossinaut Baboo.
When Cossinaut requested for the return of his money, the Zamindar showed
reluctance by making one excuse or the other. The Baboo therefore approached the
Revenue Board where also his efforts brought no result. Finally he sued the Rajah
in the Supreme Court at Calcutta. In his affidavit, he stated that the Rajah was in
the service of the Company having been employed in the collection of the
revenues. The affidavit also stated that the Rajah was subject to the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Cc art. The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Rajah directing him
to appear before the Court. In the meantime the matter was referred to the Council
at Calcutta which referred the matter to the Advocate-General for his advice on the
point whether the Zamindar was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. The Advocate-General advised that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction
over the Zamindar. Thereupon the Governor-General-in-Council issued
instructions to all the farmers and landholders that they were not subject to the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and that they could ignore the process of the
Court.

(c) Attorney General North Naylor’s role:

As the members of the council were not served the writ, the SC took an action
against North Naylor, Attorney General of the of the Company. He was committed
to prison and no bail was accepted because the punishment was regarded
‘exemplary’. The Judges and members of SC grew angry and felt insulted. Army
officials refused to allow the SC’s officials to serve the writ to the members of the
Council. While considering the case Justice Impey commented “That if they
thought themselves not amenable to the court, they ought to plead to the
jurisdiction or demur to the plaint; and if they were discontent with our
Judgements, the Charter had given them a remedy by appeal”.

(d) Processes of Supreme court:

The Charter did not demarcate either the jurisdiction of the Court or the position
of the Governor-General-in-Council. As a result of this confusion, there were
occasions, when the Supreme Court issued writ of capias against the directions of
the Council. In the Cossijurah case the confrontation between Supreme Court and
the Council became evident to the highest degree. This case in brief as follows,
One Zamindar, the Rajah of Cossijurah was heavily indebted to Cossinaut Baboo.
When Cossinaut requested for the return of his money, the Zamindar showed
reluctance by making one excuse or the other. The Baboo therefore approached the
Revenue Board where also his efforts brought no result. Finally he sued the Rajah
in the Supreme Court at Calcutta. In his affidavit, he stated that the Rajah was in
the service of the Company having been employed in the collection of the
revenues. The affidavit also stated that the Rajah was subject to the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Cc art. The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Rajah directing him
to appear before the Court. In the meantime the matter was referred to the Council
at Calcutta which referred the matter to the Advocate-General for his advice on the
point whether the Zamindar was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. The Advocate-General advised that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction
over the Zamindar. Thereupon the Governor-General-in-Council issued
instructions to all the farmers and landholders that they were not subject to the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and that they could ignore the process of the
Court. The Rajah of Cossijurah had gone into hiding to avoid the process of the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued another notice to the Rajah who did I
not pay any attention to the notice in view of the instructions from the Governor-
General-in-Council. In fact the men of the Zamindar drove away the Sheriff and
other officers who had come to arrest the Zamindar on a writ of capias. Thereupon
the Supreme Court issued another writ for the confiscation of the property of the
Rajah. The Court sent the Sheriff along with some armed constables. The Council
also came into motion, it decided to protect the Zamindar. Accordingly it
despatched a much larger armed force to prevent the arrest of the Zamindar. In the
meantime the Sheriff and officers caught hold of the Zamindar physically,
assaulted him, insulted the ladies, and did many acts of sacrilege in respect of the
idols of the gods placed in a room. By that time the Commander of the army which
had been despatched already reached the spot under the orders of the Governor-
General-in-Council. He arrested the Sheriff and his men and took them to Calcutta,
where they were released. Thereafter the Supreme Court issued a writ for the arrest
of the Commander. This writ was also prevented by a similar show of armed force.
When all efforts to recover his money failed, Cossijurah decided to file a suit
against the members of the Council. Accordingly he brought an action against the
Governor-General and the other members of the Council in the Supreme Court.
The Governor- General and his Councillors appeared in the Court in the first
‘instance. Soon they discovered that the plaintiff had brought an action against
them in their official capacity. Then they decided not to appear before the Court.
The Council issued instructions to all the Zamindars, landholders and the persons
residing outside Calcutta not to pay any attention to the process of the Court and
that in the case the Supreme Court persisted in issuing writs against them, the
Council would protect them. The show down between the Supreme Court and the
Council brought out the inherent weaknesses and defects in the Regulating Act
which did not specify the areas and the persons which were under the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court.

(e) Writ of capias:

The SC issued a writ of Capias for the Raja’s arrest. The Raja was also specially
informed by the council and therefore his people drove away the sheriff of the SC
when that official came with a writ to arrest Raja Of Cossijurah. The council issued
a notification informing all the landholders that they need not pay attention to the
process of the Supreme Court unless they were either servants of the company or
had accepted the court’s jurisdiction by their own consent. Being afraid Raja
avoided service of the writ by hiding himself.
(f) Act of settlement of 1781:
The Act of Settlement was an Amending Act of 1781, which was passed by British
Parliament on 5th July 1781 to remove the defects of the Regulating Act 1773. It is
also known as Declaratory Act, 1781.

Circumstances that led to the passing of Act of Settlement

 Though the Regulating Act of 1773, brought a great level of change both
in the regulation of affairs and judiciary, there were some significant
loopholes which this act failed to resolve. Basically, to remove the defects
of the Regulating act of 1773, the Act of Settlement 1781 was enacted.
 Firstly, some serious issues with the administration of the Warren
Hastings were there. The relevant examples of such issues are Patna case,
Cosijurah Case and particularly the Nand Kumar case where (Nand
Kumar was hanged). These all issues let to a lot of criticisms of
administration of Warren Hastings.
 Secondly, there was a big tussle between the Supreme Court and
Governor-General in Council which disturbed the balance of
administration to a great extent.
 Also, there was interference in the personal laws of the communities
which had agitated the people.

Also, in the year 1777, a complaint was made by the directors of the company
against the Supreme Court as for them it was difficult to run the administration. To
address this complaint, the House of Commons, appointed a committee known as
Touchet Committee to a do an inquiry about the administration of Bengal, Bihar,
and Odisha. The report of this committee led to the enactment of the Act of
Settlement of 1781.

The Aim of the Act

The main objectives of the enactment of this Act were :

1. To remove ambiguity regarding the few provisions of the Regulating Act

and the Charter which had created the division between the court and the
government.
 2. To support the lawful government of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, so that
revenue could be collected smoothly.
3. To maintain and protect the laws and customs of the native people.

Key Provisions (features) of the Act

The Act had the following features :

 Change in the powers of the Supreme Court

The servants of the company which earlier came within the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court were now exempted from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

By the enactment of this Act, the court’s geographical jurisdiction became limited
to only Calcutta.

 Non-interference in Revenue matters

The court now had no jurisdiction in the revenue matters concerning revenue, or
any act was done in the collection thereof, the government now became
independent of the control of the court in the matter of revenue.

 The Shift of Appellate Jurisdiction from Court to the Governor-General

and Council
The Appellate jurisdiction shifted in the hands of the Governor-General and
Council. Now, the appeals went from Provincial Courts to the Governor-General in
council.

 The Assertion on the application of the personal laws

This act asserted that Mohammedan law should be applied on the Mohammedan
cases and similarly, the Hindu law must be applied to Hindu cases.

Impacts of the Act of the Settlement

The major impacts of this act were :

  The act gave superior authority to the council over the court and favored
the council.
 This act made the position of the council very strong so that it could
continue to have a good control over the Indian empire.
 It was the first attempt to separate the executive from the judiciary by
defining the respective areas of jurisdiction.

Still, the Act failed to give a vibrant impact and to remove all the flaws of the
Regulating Act of 1773.