OUTLINES OF INDIAN LEGAL msTORY The Court was further authorised to hear, determine and judge all crimes, felonies and misdemeanours committed in the Provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, by -— fa) Any of His Majesty's subjects; end (b) Any person employed by, or being directly or indirec- dy inthe service of, the Company, or any of His ‘Majesty's subjects. ‘The Supreme Court, in the fourth place, was empowered to exercise Ecclesiastical jurisdiction throughout the provinces of Bengil, Bihar end Otima, on the British subjects residing there, As auch, the Court could grant probates of wills and téstamenta of the British subjects dying within the three provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. It could issue letters of administeation for the effects of the British subject dying intestate or dying without appointing an executor fo his will, The Charter authorized and empowered the Supreme Court to appoint guardians and keepers for infants and their estates and also guardians and keepers of inzane persons accor- ding to the rules prevalent in England. The Supreme Court was further constituted into a Court of Admiralty for the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. ‘The Court was thus to hear and try all ceseg, civil and mari time in the same way as the Admivalty used to do in England, ‘The Court wes to have power to try, with the help of a petty jury consisting of British subjects resident in the town of Calcutta, all crimes maritime, committed on the High Seas, according ta the laws and customs of the Admiralty in Eng- land. This maritime jurisdiction was to extend to His Majesty's subjecte residing in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and persons dicectly or indirectly in the service of the Company or any of ‘His Majesty's subjects. ‘The Judges of the Supreme Court were to have the same jurindiction and authority as the Justices of the Court of King’s Bench in England under the Common Law. The authority of the Judges of the Supreme Court was thus assimilated to thet of the Judges af the King’s Bench. 80‘THE SUPREME GOURT OF JUDICATUAR AT FORT WILLIAM ‘The Supreme Court was to supersede the Mayor's, Court and the Court of Oyer and Terminer and Gaul Delivery -com- posed of the Governor and Council working under the Charter ‘of 3753. The Supreme Court did not, however, abolish the Court of Requests established ot Calcutta by the Charter of 1753, The Court of Requesta continued to function as ueual ‘even alter the establishment of the Supreme Court, The Regulating Act, as noted above, had appointed the Governor General and members of the Council, and the Judges of the Supreme Court as Justices of the Peace, and authorized them to hold Quarter Sessions. ‘With an idea to engure that the Court of Requests and the Justices of the Peace, and the Court of the Quarter Sessions th be held by the Justices of the Peace at Calcutta might answer better the ends of their institutions, and ‘act more ~conformably io law and justice’, the Charter empowered the Supreme Court, as a superior Court to superintend and control the Court of Requests and the Justices of the Peace in such manner and form as the inferior Courts and Magistrates of England were, by law, ‘subject to the order and control’ of ‘the Court of King's Bench. To achieve this object, the Supreme Court wos authorised to issue various Prerogative Writs like \C the Mandamus', Certiorari*, Procedendo!, or Error', A Mandscmus tan order itnved by the King’s Bench cominndiog agitate or cane cure an infer jordichon to dicherges ot Tt fies ta. an inferior coutt asking. (t to. sate a case or ta exeteloa a Juniedivion & ee “aoe Wet pores ia more a mi foment court to the ‘a Bench. Tt may use fore 2 trial ia ex to oecore © atte teal than, canbe letined: before aa iobeioe rouse Gh te prevent an excess of jurisdiction. Ty ia invoked also aftes tral to quash an order which had been sade without. jurlediction ar in’ deface oF the ules of natural justice. 3. Procedtaste cc Prohibition: The wi Bench primarily to prevent 2 lower court from exceeding ita jurisdiction, or acting contrary te the rules of natural justice, #2, to restrain the judge From bearing # chte in which be in personally interested. 4- , The action of ertar was the ancient methed of proseciting sppeals from Judgments of the Couns. The proceedings were initimed ty the Writ of Error. It was a very different nutter from an appeal 26 we under- wat ea Tt could only be brought when some error was apparent cee ix used by the King’s gLOUTLINES GF INDIAN LEGAL AATORY ¢ ‘The Regulating Act had left it to the Charter to ley down the conditions under which appeals from the decisions of the Supceme Court were to lie to the King in Council, The Charter defined these conditions, 22 follows : fa) In civil casts appeals could be made with the: per- mission af the Supreme Court itself, The petition seeking the requisite permission was lo be presented to the Supreme Court within six months fom the day of its pronouncing the judgment in that parti- cular case. Appeal could lie only if the eubject- matter involved in the dispute exceeded one thousand pagodas, (84 In criminal cases, the Supreme Court was to have power and absolute discretion to allow or deny the permission tq make an appeal ta the King in Council from ite decision, (Besides, the King in Council reserved the right, as a special caze, to refuse or admit an appeal from any judgment, decree ov order of the Supreme Court, upon auch terms and conditions as they thought Ait. ¥The Cherter granted to the Supreme Court a power to fuprieve or suspend the execution of any capital sentence. TL was thought that there might arise cuses wherein it might be ‘proper to remit the general severity of the jaw in the sphere of czinwinol justice administered by the Supreme Clouct. In such cases, if the Supreme Gourt thought that there was a propet occasion fer mercy, then it ould suspend the execution of the death sentence, transmit t the King in Council all the relevant record along with the seasons for recommending the ctiminel to mercy, and await the pleasure of the King. The Supreme Court was empowered to admit such and so many Advocates and Attornies as it thought proper. Only sue persoag were to appear and plead before the Court ‘On reasonable cause, the Court was authorised to remave any of them from the solls. No other person, except such Advo- cates and Attornies, were to be allowed to act and plead in the Court. 82‘rite SUPREME COUNT OF JUDTCATDRE AT FORT WILLIAM MERIT! OF THE SUBPRENGE COURT As on instcument to administer justice, the Supreme Court of Judicature was e great improvement. on its prede- cessor, the Mayor's Court and the Court of Oyer and Termi- ner and Gaol Delivery endsting at Calcutta under the Royal Charter of 1753. Thin judicial system was extremely unsatisfactory and suffered from many glaring defects. The ‘Mayor's Court had authority to try causes in which the Com- pany ittelf was a party. But auch trials were vitiated by the fact that the Judges who composed the Mayor's Court were removable at the discretion of the Gowernor and Council, from whose action there Jay only the dilatory remedy by say of appeal to the King in.Couneil, The Court of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery, composed of the functionaries of the Company appointed in Calcutta, was an insufficient dere rent to wrong doing on: the part of the Company's officials, The Court of the Governor and the Council waz completely effective to checle the Company's servants from misusing ar abusing their position to the detriment to the country. Th Judges (or the Aldermen) of the Mayor's Court had generally heen junior servants of the Company. These peroans wore supposed to act under the English Law, of which they were largely ignotunt. It was. theirs to decide, without any profes- sional knowledge of low, cases affecting the property, the liberty and the lives of the British subjects and their native de- pendents. With the result that they referred for the advice of the Company's counsel in England before deciding eompii cated matters of law and all this resulted in great delay, Fur- ther, the process of at appesl from that Court to the King ‘Council was intolerably tedious, * The institution of the Supreme Court was an ace of ce= formation, The Court was to consist of professional lawyers as Judges. They were to be appointed by His Majesty ancl they were to hold che office during His Majesty's pleasure. The Court wes, therefore, free from all the defects which vitiated the previous judicial eyatems, It was ina much better | position to take a dispassionate view of the cases in which either the Company or its-servanta happened to be involved.