Introduction to the Mayor’s Courts

The Mayor's Courts hold a significant place in the legal history of India, reflecting the evolution of justice under British colonial rule. These courts were established to address the inadequacies and inconsistencies in legal administration by the East India Company across major presidency towns like Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta. This article delves into the origins, functions, and eventual transformation of the Mayor’s Courts, offering a detailed exploration of their role in shaping the judicial system in colonial India.

Establishment and Functions of the Mayor’s Courts

The need for uniform judicial administration became apparent as the East India Company struggled with legal uncertainties in its Indian territories. To address this, the British government instituted the Mayor’s Courts through the Charter of 1726. This Charter aimed to standardize legal practices across all presidency towns by creating a uniform judicial system under the Crown's authority.

Structure and Jurisdiction

Initially, the Mayor’s Courts were composed of the Mayor and two Aldermen. They held civil and probate (will-related) jurisdiction and were designed to operate independently of executive influence. The courts were empowered to handle both civil and criminal cases, with a jury system employed in criminal proceedings. However, the Charter of 1726 limited their power by reducing their criminal jurisdiction and shifting significant authority to the local Governor in Council.

Probate and Testamentary Jurisdiction

Under the Charter of 1726, the Mayor’s Courts had testamentary jurisdiction, allowing them to grant probate and letters of administration. They were bound by English laws and procedures, which marked a significant shift towards judicial independence from executive control. Despite this, the Mayor's Courts could only meet up to three times a week and were primarily available to Europeans, as they were not designed to interfere with local native affairs.

Reforms and Limitations

The Crown's Charter of 1754 brought notable changes to the Mayor’s Courts. The Mayor became a government nominee, reducing the court's independence and making it more susceptible to governmental influence. Additionally, new Court of Requests was established to handle minor cases up to Rs. 15, introducing a faster and cheaper legal avenue but subservient to the Council. This period also saw the introduction of English procedural laws into India.

Impact on Local Population

The Mayor’s Courts were mainly accessible to Europeans, leaving Indian natives with limited recourse to justice. The structure of the judicial system included:

• Civil Cases: Court of Requests, Mayor’s Courts, and Privy Council.
• Criminal Cases: Justice of the Peace, Court of Quarter Sessions.

Criticisms and Failures

Several defects were noted in the judicial system of 1753:

1. Judicial Subordination: Judges appointed by the Governor in Council were often subservient to the East India Company, undermining impartial justice.
2. Lack of Expertise: Many judges were unfamiliar with civil and criminal law.
3. Conflicts of Interest: Mayors and other officials were engaged in private trade activities, creating conflicts of interest.
4. Limited Jurisdiction: The courts’ jurisdiction was confined to presidency towns, allowing Englishmen in mofussil areas to evade justice.

The Regulating Act of 1774 and Subsequent Changes

The inefficiencies of the Mayor’s Courts led to the appointment of a Committee by the House of Commons in 1772. The Committee's findings resulted in the Regulating Act of 1774, which replaced the Mayor's Courts with the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta. This Supreme Court, composed of professional judges appointed by the Crown, marked a shift towards a more impartial and effective judiciary. The subsequent replacement of Mayor’s Courts in Madras and Bombay by Supreme Courts further consolidated this judicial reform.

Conclusion

The Mayor’s Courts were instrumental in transitioning from an uncertain and inconsistent legal system to a more structured and formal judicial system in colonial India. Despite their initial role in providing justice, their limitations and eventual replacement by the Supreme Courts reflect the ongoing evolution of legal institutions in response to both administrative challenges and the need for greater judicial independence.