The Regulating Act of 1773 and Its Impact on the Supreme Court and Supreme Council

The Regulating Act of 1773 was a pivotal legislation introduced by the British government to address administrative and legal challenges in British-occupied India. This article explores the key aspects of the Act, the establishment and functions of the Supreme Court at Calcutta, and the ensuing legal conflicts between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Council.

Background: The Context of the Regulating Act of 1773

After Lord Clive's decisive victory in the Battle of Plassey in 1757, the East India Company emerged as the dominant power in Bengal. The Company maintained the Nawab of Bengal in a nominal role while exercising substantial control over the region. However, the administration faced severe challenges, including the devastating famine of 1770 and financial shortages. To address these issues and reform the governance structure, the British government enacted the Regulating Act of 1773.

Key Provisions of the Regulating Act of 1773

1. Appointment of the Governor-General and Council

The Regulating Act established a new administrative framework by appointing a Governor-General and four councillors for the Civil and Military government of the Presidency of Calcutta. This aimed to enhance oversight and streamline the management of British territories in India.

2. Establishment of the Supreme Court at Calcutta

The Act authorized the Crown to create a Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta through a Charter of Letters Patent. This court, composed of a Chief Justice and three other judges, was tasked with overseeing civil, criminal, admiralty, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Judges were to be appointed by the Crown and required to have at least five years of barrister experience.

3. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was empowered to exercise jurisdiction over all British subjects in Bengal and Orissa. However, the court's authority excluded cases involving indictments against the Governor-General and the councillors, except for charges of treason and felony. It was designed to function as a court of equity, following the rules and proceedings of the High Court of Chancery in Great Britain.

4. Judicial Powers and Status

The Supreme Court was given the status of the King's Bench judges in England, with the power to issue prerogative writs. This provided the court with a significant role in administering justice across various legal domains, including common law, equity, admiralty, and ecclesiastical matters.

Challenges and Conflicts: Supreme Court vs. Supreme Council

1. Ambiguities and Jurisdictional Issues

Several ambiguities in the Regulating Act led to conflicts between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Council:

• Application of Law: The Act did not clarify which laws the Supreme Court should apply, leading to confusion over whether English law, which was highly technical and specific to English contexts, was suitable for Indian subjects and Company employees.
• Company's Immunity: The Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the Company's revenue functions was contested. While the Supreme Court asserted its authority, the Company claimed immunity, resulting in complex legal disputes.
• Zamindars' Status: The status of Zamindars (revenue collectors) and their immunity from Supreme Court jurisdiction led to further litigation and jurisdictional conflicts.

2. Notable Cases

Several leading cases highlighted the tensions between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Council:

• Kamaluddin's Case (1775): Kamaluddin, a farmer, was released from prison by the Supreme Court despite objections from the government. This case emphasized the court's role in protecting individuals from oppressive revenue practices.
• The Patna Case (1777): This case demonstrated the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over judicial officers of the Company and their actions. The court's decision to annul a Provincial Court's order and award damages was later nullified by the Act of Settlement 1781.
• Cossijurah's Case (1779): The Supreme Court's attempt to exercise jurisdiction over Zamindars led to a confrontation with the Governor-General. The case was ultimately resolved through the Act of Settlement 1781, which restricted the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over revenue matters and native subjects.
• Trial of Nandakumar: Maharaja Nandakumar's prosecution for forgery, amid allegations of corruption and bias, highlighted issues with the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and procedural fairness. The trial faced criticism for its lack of jurisdictional clarity and perceived injustices.
• Saroop Chand's Case: This case involved the arbitrary imprisonment of Saroop Chand, a surety for revenue payment. The Supreme Court's intervention revealed issues with the Council's handling of revenue disputes and its role in adjudicating its own matters.

Conclusion

The Regulating Act of 1773 marked a significant shift in the administration and legal oversight of British India. While it aimed to reform governance and establish a structured legal system, it also introduced challenges and conflicts between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Council. The subsequent legal battles and amendments, including the Act of Settlement 1781, reflected the evolving nature of British colonial administration and its efforts to balance authority and justice in a complex and dynamic environment.