1/18/23, 10:53 PM Charters of the British Crown - iPleaders

Merits of Charter of 1753

After the Charter of 1726 unrest was created among the natives who believed the Mayor’s
Court was imposed on them. This problem was solved by the Charter of 1753. The Charter of
1753 expressly stated that in the case of the natives the Mayor’s Court had jurisdiction when
both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to submit the case in front of the court. It
increased the jurisdiction of the Mayor’s Court and includes cases against mayor aldermen and
the Company 

In order to help the poor inhabitants of the presidency, the  Court of Request was established
which provided quick and cheap justice to poor litigants with small claims 

Demerits of the Charter of 1753

The Charter of 1753 made the judiciary subservient to the executive. The appointment of
Mayor and Aldermen was given to the Governor and Council and they already had to dismiss
them from their post. 

The judges of the Mayor’s Court were expected to give judgements by using English law and
English procedures but the Charter of 1753 made no provision for law experts thus the
Mayor’s Court was forced to appoint company servants as judges who were laymen. 

Charter of 1774
The Regulation Act of 1773 gave the British Crown the authority to establish a Supreme court at
Calcutta through the issuance of a Charter. On 26th March 1774 King George I granted a Charter
of justice to the company for the establishment of The Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta.
The powers of the 1774 charter superseded the powers of the 1753 Charter thus bringing about
the abolishment of the Mayor’s court in Calcutta. The Supreme Court of Judicature came into
existence on the 22nd of October and began its functions in January 1775. This was the first
attempt made by the Crown to bring about an independent and separate judiciary system in
India. 


https://blog.ipleaders.in/charters-of-the-british-crown/#Charter_of_1726 24/50
1/18/23, 10:53 PM Charters of the British Crown - iPleaders

The Supreme Court was composed of Chief justice and three Puisne judges (regular judges). The
member of the Supreme Court had to be a barrister in Law for not less than five years standing.
The Charter also made provisions for the appointment and removal of judges as well as for the
jurisdiction, powers, and functions by the Regulation act of 1773. The first Chief justice of the
Supreme Court was Sir Elijah Impey and the first puisne judges of the supreme court were
Robert Chambers, Stephen Caesar Lemaitre, and John Hyde who were appointed by the king.
The Supreme Court was like the Court of Record; it had civil, criminal, admiralty, and Ecclesiastes
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court was a court of equity; it had the authority to administer justice
but it had to function in the same manner as the High Court of Chancery in Great Britain. The
Supreme Court also had the power to regulate and make rules for its proceedings and the
modification, approval, and rejection of these rules was done by the King-in-Council. 

The selection of the Sheriff was done by the Governor and Council. The Governor and Council
selected the Sheriff out of three nominees from the Supreme Court. The duty of the Sheriff was
to execute the orders of the court and also to detain in prison any person committed to him by
the court. 

The Supreme Court had the power to appoint subordinate officers based on necessity but the
salaries of these officers required the approval of the Governor l-General and Council. The
Supreme Court also had the power to regulate the Court fees with permission of the Governor-
General and Council. The supreme court controlled and supervised the work of the Court of
Request, Court of Collector, quarter sessions, Sheriffs, etc. They also had the authority to issue
writs of certiorari, mandamus, error of procedendo to these courts. 

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under the Charter of 1774

Civil jurisdiction
The Supreme Court had civil jurisdiction in civil matters relating to the East India Company,
Mayor, and Aldermen of Calcutta. While in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa matters related to his
Majesty’s subjects and British subjects fell under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court also had jurisdiction over all persons who were directly or indirectly employed by
the company and the subjects of his Majesty. The Supreme Court also had jurisdiction in cases

https://blog.ipleaders.in/charters-of-the-british-crown/#Charter_of_1726 25/50
1/18/23, 10:53 PM Charters of the British Crown - iPleaders

where the person is residing in India, the inhabitant of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, if they signed
or made a contract with his Majesty’s subjects but the amount of the cause of action involved
must be exceeding Rs. 500.

Criminal jurisdiction
In the town of Calcutta, Factory and factories subordinate to Fort Williams the Supreme Court
was made the Court of Oyer, Termination and Gaol delivery where it could hear cases of treason,
murder, felonies, trespass, and other crimes and misdemeanours. The Supreme Court didn’t have
any jurisdiction over residents inhabiting the regions Calcutta, Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa but it
was empowered to hear and judge all crimes, misdemeanours, or oppressions committed by the
subjects, servants of His Majesty residing in these provinces. The Supreme Court did not have
any jurisdiction to hear matters of the Governor and Council unless in classes of treason and
felony. The Supreme Court also had powers to suspend the executive capital punishment and
send it for recommendation to the British Council. The Governor and Council and the Supreme
Court had immunity against being arrested except in the cases of treason and felony. 

Ecclesiastical jurisdiction
The Supreme Court had ecclesiastical jurisdiction over British subjects residing in Bengal, Bihar,
and Orissa. It had to apply ecclesiastical law prevailing in the Diocese of London. 

Admiralty jurisdiction 
The Supreme Court was a court of admiralty for the regions of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. Its
jurisdiction was the same as the Courts of Admirable in England. It could hear all cases relating
to civil and maritime crimes and crimes committed on the high seas and offshores of Bengal,
Bihar, and Orissa. These cases could be heard with help of a petty jury consisting of British
subjects residing in Calcutta. 

Equity jurisdiction
The supreme court was a court of equity; it was conferred with full responsibility to administer
justice quickly and arbitrarily according to the rules and proceedings of the English  High Court of

https://blog.ipleaders.in/charters-of-the-british-crown/#Charter_of_1726 26/50
1/18/23, 10:53 PM Charters of the British Crown - iPleaders

Chancery. Similar to the Court of Chancery in England the Supreme Court also had the authority
to listen to cases without being bound by the technicalities of law and could administer justice by
principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

Writ jurisdiction 
The Supreme Court has the authority to supervise, control, and issue writs of certiorari,
mandamus, and error of procedendo to subordinate courts. These subordinate courts include the
Court of Request, the Court of Collector, Quarter Sessions, Sheriffs, etc. The Supreme Court was
given this power of issuing writs to effectively control the Subordinate Court and other company
authorities who were engaged in the administration of justice in the regions of Bengal, Bihar, and
Orissa. 

Appeals 
CIVIL CASES: Under Civil cases appeals could be filed from the Supreme Court to the King-In-
Council with permission of the Supreme Court for subject matters in dispute exceeding the
monetary value of 1000 Pagodas. The petition seeking permission must be filed within 6
months after the delivery of the judgement 

CRIMINAL CASES: Under criminal cases appeals can be heard from the Supreme Court to the
King-In-Council with the permission of the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court also has
complete authority to reject or accept permission of such appeals. 

King-In-Council also had absolute discretion to admit or refuse any appeal from the Supreme
Court. 

Charter of 1784
East India Company had a monopoly to trade with the East Indies but they did not receive this
monopoly for free. To maintain this monopoly, the East India Company had to pay the Crown
yearly an amount of £ 400,000 but due to the Bengal famine in 1768, the Anglo Mysore war, and
the corruption present in the company, the Company fell into a financial crisis and almost at the
verge of bankruptcy. The Crown did not want to see such a profitable company fall in ruins
therefore the British Government felt the need to revive which was done with help of the 
https://blog.ipleaders.in/charters-of-the-british-crown/#Charter_of_1726 27/50