KAMALLUDDIN’S

CASE
PRESENTED BY – KAMLINA MORE
B.L.S. LL.B. – 2ND YEAR (3RD SEM)
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

• The Kamaluddin’s case displays the first open conflict between the
Council and the Supreme Court with regards to the jurisdiction of
various subjects. More precisely over the court’s control of the Diwani
Rights.
FACTS OF THE CASE

• Kamaluddin was the holder of the Salt Farm in Hugli which falls under the undivided
district of Medinipur in Bengal.
• He was in arrears of rent in 1775 to which revenue council of Calcutta issued a writ to his
committal to prison without bail.
• On this he obtained the writ of Habeas Corpus from the Supreme Court with the court
giving out the following reasoning, “ In case of disputed accounts, the defendant should
be provided bail till the inquiry regarding his obligation to pay was completed and he is
held liable.”
• But of course, the Council yet again did not listen to the Court. Instead regarded the
Court’s order as an encroachment to Company’s Diwani Rights.
• The Council said that, “Court has no right to interfere as there was no specific provision
in the Regulating Act which allowed the court to do so.”
• The Council further added that, this right is solely with the Governor General and the
Council and hence the Supreme Court has committed breach of law on the ground of
exceeded jurisdiction.
• 3 members out of 4 from the council voted towards not obeying the order of the Court.
• But, that the suggestion could not be put in practice.Why?
• Because Governor Hastings, hesitated and did not support the defiance of the Court's
order or more like his close friend Justice Impey's order.
• It is seen that after sometime Kamaluddin was arrested again, to which he again acquired
the writ of Habeas Corpus from the Court and finally was discharged by the Court.
• Chief Justice Impey in a letter to the court of Directors justified the Court's action on 2
grounds: 1. Usual Practice. 2. Refusal of being accused of assuming jurisdiction over
revenue cases as such.
• Impey further justified that the court did not desire to interfere with the "ordering and
management" of the revenues, but the collection of revenues was a different matter.
• He asserted that the court that the court would be guilty of breach of trust, if it refuted to
take cognizance of violence and oppressions used in the collection of revenue.
CONCLUSION

• This case being backed by a few other instances created a difference of

opinion between the Court and the Council which was to manifest itself in a
more violent form later along with bringing out the inside work of Governor
Warren Hastings and Chief Justice Elija Impey.
THANK YOU..!!!