Swaroop Chand case

Swarup Chand was Mai zamin or security of the pargana of and a sum of Rs. 10,000 was due-
from him. When he objected to pay the amount, the Provincal Council of Dacca ordered him
into prison. Later on he was released; but was to be kept undur surveillance, provided he
executed a bond expressing his willingness to satisfy any demands established against him
after the cases against him had been heard and decided. On his refusing to abide by this
condition, he was sent back to the prison, because his resistance adversely affected the
prestige of the Provincial Council. But Swarup Chand besides being Mai zamin, was also the
Treasurer of the Provincial Council at Dacca, and as such had a sum of Rs. 66,749 in his
hand, which he had not deposited into the treasury.
Swarup Chand was personally called before the Provincial Council and questioned with
regard to these claims.

Swarup Chand was again asked to pay the amount forthwith, but his reply was, "It is not due
from me and I will not pay it". When the second demand was pressed on him, he expressed
his readiness to meet it partly in cash and partly in bonds of Rs. 20,000 on some gentlemen
dependent on the Company. Questioned further Swarup Chand stated that Mr. Shakespear, a
member of the Dacca Council, owed him Rs. 11,000, Mr. Day Rs. 6,000 and Mr. Lodge Rs.
3,000. Mr. Shakespear, however, repudiated the claim of Swarup Chand and warned the
Council against accepting any bond as a countersecurity. Later Swarup Chand admitted that
these were all private transactions and that to none of these gentlemen, Mr. Shakespear, Mr.
Day or Mr. Lodge, money had been advanced from the Company' cash. The Council
thereupon urged for immediate payment, but Swarup Chand was adamant and returned the
same answer each time : "1 will give those bonds for Rs. 20,000 or I will pay this amount
when I recover these bonds and other debts".

Thereupon the Dacca Council resolved to remand Swarup Chand back into prison till such
time as he shall here paid the amount demanded and due from him. Meanwhile Swarup
Chand had applied to the Supreme Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Mr. Justice Hyde
issued a rule to show cause as to why a Writ should not be granted.

On the latter day Robert Jarrett, Attorney for the Company, appeared before Mr. Justice Hyde
and placed before him "such part of the proceedings as I thought were proper for him to see",
omitting to show him "that part of the proceeding where the Board resolve to confine him for
the balance remaining due to the Company, as Cossanchy or banker, it not being clear to me
that they are authorised to do that".

The SC was of the opinion that since it is a financial matter, a bail should have been granted.
The denial of bail is not proper and is arbitraty, the SC opined.

There is also a clash of jurisdiction here bw SC and Patna Council. Mr. Justice Hyde granted
the Writ, opining that the proceedings of the Dacca Council were, by no means, satisfactory
to him.

The case came up for final hearing on the 20th September. Mr. Newman, the Company's
counsel, again pleaded for enlargement of the time for making the return, but the Court
refused to grant the motion. The Counsel next proposed that the prisoner might be given his
freedom on bail in Calcutta, but that he should not be permitted to leave the settlement. But
the two Judges refused to accede to any terms unless a total release was given to the prisoner
and the security given was to be in the following words : - "That he should appear and pay
any sum of money which any competent Court of Judicature should adjudge to be due from
him to the United Company of Merchants in England trading in the East Indies".

The main issue in this case was as to whether the Governor-General and Council or their
authorised agents in the provinces possessed the ministerial right of imprisoning a person for
revenue default without any judicial proceeding whatsoever.

In Justice Le Maistre's view inferior officers of the East India Company stationed in the
districts should exercise a ministerial power of imprisoning, without bail or mainprize, all
such persons as they would deem indebted to the Company for rents and revenues, struck
Justice Le Maistre as the most arbitrary abuse of power and it was revolting to think that in
the late Act of Parliament one could find confirmation or the intent to confirm such a gross
abuse.

Furthermore, according to this opinion there was evidence to show that this power of
arbitrary imprisonment had never been conceded by the Court of Directors. In 1772 they sent
to India a Commission of Supervisors, to whom they delegated the powers,

Then follow these material words : "And to that end end purpose, in the name and on behalf
of the said United Comany, by due course of law, to sue for and recover the same." Justice'
Le Maistre observes : More power (than delegated to Supervisors) therefore, cannot be
presumed to have been delegated to the late President and Council ; and therefore no more
power could rest in the present Governor-General and Council by the transfer of the late
President and Council in the late Act of Parliament, to them. In short, the Court's view of the
matter was that without some legal proceeding somewhere the Governor-General and Council
or their agents in the districts had no power of imprisoning a man without bail and manprize.
The Court had always been careful to interfere as little as possible with-the ordering,
management, and governing of the territorial acquisitions and revenues, which the late Act of
Parliament vested expressly in the Governor- General and Council, who in the provinces
possessed at least a concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court, and consequently "every
Judge of the Court has been extremely careful in directing Writs of Habeas Corpus to issue
there, unless there appeared strong grounds of oppression and injustice, which seemed to
require it." The affidavits, and other attendant circumstances left no doubt in Justice Le
Maistre's mind that Swarup Chand's was a fit case for interference and therefore he ordered
him to be released, though, at the same time, he was careful to demand two sureties from
Swarup Chand to secure his debt to the Company.
It does not appear to us that any reasonable exception can be taken to the view adopted by the
Court.

The main reason for the establishment of the Supreme Court was the change effected in the
character of the Company because of its acquisition of territorial revenues. This had opened
to the Company's servants a wide field for jobbery and corruption and the Regulating Act, in
some of its sections, definitely prohibited some of these malpractices. But the greatest
instrument on which the authors of the Regulating Act seemed to rely was the Supreme Court
iteslf, which was to be a King's Court and completely independent of the Company.

It should be recognised that the interfernce of the Supreme Court put the revenue
administration under difficulties of all sorts and undoubtedly hampered the business of
collection. The Company's law officers also found it extremely difficult to put up satisfactory
defence in these cases mainly because the requirements of English law were so entirely alien
to the customs and usages of this country. The result was that many of the Company's officers
were seized with a nervous fear and excused themselves from accepting the post of a Judge of
the Adalat because he apprehended vexations prosecutions in the Supreme Court. The
difficulties that he would be put to in that situation are thus characteristically described: "The
more effectually he performs his duty, the more he maintains the dignity of his office and
enforces his decisions, the more he is liable to prosecution. If, in procuring the attendance of
witnesses, he should exercise any compulsory powers, if, to restrain trivial and ground
complaints and to detect chicane and intrigue he should put in practice the discretionary
powers with which he is invested by the public regulations of imposing a moderate fine, or
inflicting a mild corporal punishment, he may become subject to a suit which may terminate
in his ruin... The mode of transacting business in this country is so fundamentally different
from that which prevails in England, and so contrary to the letter and form of English laws,
that scarce any transaction tried by their standards will admit of a justification." It cannot be
said that these complaints were groundless, and whatever the legal position might be, it is
clear that the activities of the Supreme Court had brought about a situation in which the
servants of the Company found it increasingly difficult to discharge the responsibilities of
their office.