(a) to bring the management of the Company under the control of the British Parliament and the British Crown; (b) to introduce reforms in the constitution of the Company at home (-.e., in England). (c) to introduce reforms in the Company’s Government in India; (d) to prove remedies against illegalities and oppressions committee by the Company’s servants in India.

1. REGULATING ACT OF
1773 AND SUPREME
COURT OF CALCUTTA
UNIT 2

2. OBJECTIVES OF REGULATING ACT, 1773
(a) to bring the management of the Company under the control of the British Parliament and the
British Crown;
(b) to introduce reforms in the constitution of the Company at home (-.e., in England).
(c) to introduce reforms in the Company’s Government in India;
(d) to prove remedies against illegalities and oppressions committee by the Company’s servants
in India.

3. PROVISIONS OF THE
REGULATING ACT

4. 1. CONSTITUTION OF THE COMPANY
The term of the directors was increased from one year to four years; one fourth of the directors
were to retire every year and in their place other persons were to be elected.
Certain changes were introduced in the voting rights of the proprietors. Only those proprietors
who held shares of 1000 £ were given the right of vote and those who held the shares of less
than 1000 £ were denied.
In short, the proprietors who held a stock of 1000 £ were given one vote and who held 4 stock
of 3000 £ were given two votes, and who held a stock of 6000 £ were given three votes and who
held a stock of 10,000 £ or more were given four votes.
Besides, in order to make the control of the British Government over the Company more
effective, it was provided that all correspondences relating to revenues in India must be placed
by the directors of the Company before the Treasury in England
Also, all the correspondences regarding civil and military affairs with the Indian authorities
before the Secretary of State in England.

5. 2. COMPANY’S GOVERNMENT IN INDIA:
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
Executive authority (Governor General and Council) in Calcutta Presidency
As regards the Government of Calcutta Presidency, in the place of the Government and Council, a new
Government under the Governor-General and Council of four members was established.
The Governor of Bengal was designated as the Governor-General of Bengal. The Governor-General and the
members of the Council were appointed for five years, but they could be removed earlier by ‘the British Crown on
_ the recommendation of the Court of Directors.
 A casual vacancy in the office of the Governor-General was to be filled by the senior most member of the
Council:and a vacancy in the Council was to be filled by the Company’ with’ the consent of the British Crown. The
salary ‘of the Governor-General and the members of the Council was fixed.’
Warren Hastings was to be the Governor-General and Richard Barwell, General Clavering, Phillip Francis and
Colonel Monson were to be the Councillors. The decisions of the Council were to be made by a majority of votes
and in the case of divisions among the ‘members’ of the Council being equal, the Governor-General had a casting
vote.
.The Act vested in the’ Governor-General and Council the whole civil and military Government of the Calcutta
Presidency and also the ordering, management and Government of all territorial acquisitions and revenues in the
kingdoms of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.


6. Executive authority (Governor General and Council) in Bombay and Madras Presidency
The Presidencies of Bombay and Madras were brought under the control and superintendence of the Governor-
General and Council in matters of war and peace.
They could not make any orders for commencing hostilities or declaring war or for making any treaty of peace or
other treaty with any Indian Princes or powers without obtaining the approval or consent of the Governor-General
and Council.
However, there were two exceptions to the aforesaid provisions. In the following conditions, the Presidencies of
Bombay and Madras could commence war or make any treaty of peace or other treaty without the approval or
consent of the Governor-General and Council:
(i) Imminent necessity— If there was imminent necessity as would render it dangerous to postpone war or treaty
until the orders from the Governor-General and Council might arrive.
(ii) (ii) Orders received from the Court of Directors-If they received special orders from the Court of Directors to
commence war or to make treaty of peace or other treaty.
The Presidencies of Bombay and Madras were, thus, made subordinate to the Calcutta Presidency. They were to
transmit all necessary information concerning the Government, revenues or interests of the Company to the
Governor-General and Council.
 The Governor-General and Council were to transmit the information regarding their activities affecting the interests
of the Company, to the Court of Directors.
The Governor-General and Council were required to pay due obedience to the order of the Court of Directors.

7. COMPANY’S GOVERNMENT IN INDIA:
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
The Governor-General and Council were empowered to make rules and regulations and issue ordinances
for the good governance of the settlement of Fort William and the factories subordinate to it.
The rules, regulations and ordinances made by them were required to be just and reasonable and not
repugnant to the laws of England.
They were to be of any force after being published and registered with the Supreme Court with its
consent and approbation.
Besides, any person in India could file an appeal against such rules, regulations and Ordinances in the
King-in-Council within 60 days of their registration in the Supreme Court.
 However, the appeal had to be lodged in the Supreme Court at Calcutta within 69 days of their
registration in the Supreme Court.’
Any person in England could appeal against them to King-in-Council within 60 days of their publication
there. The King-in-Council could disapprove or disallow them at any time within 2 years from the date of
their passage.
 It was necessary to send the copies of such rules, regulations and Ordinances to the Secretary of State in
England.

8. COMPANY’S GOVERNMENT IN INDIA:
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
e Regulating Act empowered the British Crown to establish a Supreme Court at Calcutta by
issuing a Charter.* The Act made specific provisions for the appointment for the judges of the
Court and also for the jurisdiction of the Court which have been explained below in this Chapter
under the heading "Supreme Court at Calcutta."

9. OTHER PROVISIONS
The Governor-General, the members of the Council and judges of the Supreme Court were
prohibited under the Regulating Act from accepting presents or engaging themselves in private
trade.4 No person holding any civil or military office under the Crown or the Company could
accept from any of the Indian princes or powers any present or reward.® The Collector,
supervisors or other officers engaged in the collection of revenue or thc administration of justice
could not engage themselves in private trade.® The offences, crimes or misdemeanours
committed by the Governor-General, members of the Council or Governor or any judge of the
Supreme Court against any of his Majesty’s subjects or any inhabitant of India could be heard,
tried and determined by the Court of King’s Bench in England.’

10. SUPREME COURT AT CALCUTTA
The Regulating Act empowered the British Crown to establish a Supreme Court at Calcutta by issuing a
Charter.
The British Crown issued a Charter in 1774 establishing the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta.
 The Charter of 1774 superseded the provisions of the Charter of 1753 and resulted in the abolition of
the Mayor’s Court at Calcutta.
The Charter of 1774 made provisions for the appointment and removal of the judges as well as for the
jurisdiction, powers and functions of the Court on the basis of and in accordance with the Regulating
Act, 1773.
The Supreme Court established under the Charter of 1774 consisted of a Chief Justice and three
Puisne Judges.
Only those persons who were barristers of not less than 5 years’ standing could be appointed by the
British Crown and they were to hold office during the pleasure of the Crown.
The Supreme Court was a Court of Record. It was also a Court of equity and therefore it was given
power to administer justice, as nearly as might be, according to the rules and proceedings of the High
Court of Chancery in Great Britain.


11. It could regulate its own procedure. It was empowered to make rules for its procedure. These rules
could be approved, modified or rejected by the King-in-Council.
The Supreme Court was to nominate three persons yearly to the Governor-General and Council who
were to select one of them as Sheriff. It was the primary duty of Sheriff to execute the orders of the
court and also to detain in prison the persons committed to him by the Court.
The Supreme Court was authorised to admit attorneys and advocates.
 It could appoint necessary subordinate officers, but their salary was required to be approved by the
Governor-General and Council.
Besides, the Supreme Court was also authorised to regulate Court-fee with the consent of the
Governor-General and Council.
The Court of Collector, quarter sessions, Court of Requests, Sheriffs, etc. were put under its control
and supervision and for this purpose it was also authorised to issue writs of certiorari, mandamus,
error or procedendo to these Courts.

12. JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF
SUPREME COURT
(1) Civil jurisdiction.—The Supreme Court was conferred with wide jurisdiction in civil matters. It
was conferred original jurisdiction in the civil matters. Its jurisdiction in the civil matters
extended to the following :
(i) The East India Company and the Mayor and Aldermen of Calcutta;
(ii) His Majesty’s subjects and British subjects residing in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa;
iii) Any other person directly or indirectly under the employment or service of the Company of
His Majesty's subjects;
(iv) Persons inhabitants of India, residing in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa if they had made a contract
or entered into an agreement in writing with any of his Majesty's subjects to refer their disputes
to the Supreme Court provided the amount involved in the cause of action exceeded Rs. 500.

13. (2) Criminal Jurisdiction—
The Supreme Court was made a Court of Oyer and Terminer and of Gaol Delivery in and for the town of Calcutta and
Factory of Fort Williams and the Factories subordinate thereto and it was given the same powers and authority to enquire
into all cases of treasons, murders, felonies, forgeries, trespasses and other crimes and misdemeanours as the Courts of
Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery in England had.
 It was also empowered to hear, determine and judge all crimes, misdemeanours or oppressions committed in any part of
the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa by His Majesty’s subjects or by a person employed by the Company or by a person
directly or indirectly in the service of the Company or His Majesty’s subject.
It is notable that the Court did not have jurisdiction over all the native inhabitants of Calcutta and of Bengal, Bihar and
Orissa. Its jurisdiction extended to His Majesty’s subjects.
The provision was made for the use of jury consisting of the British subjects residing in Calcutta in trying the criminal cases.
However, it is to be noted that the Supreme Court was not empowered to try the Governor-General and members of the
Council for any offence except treason or felony.
Besides, the Governor-General, the members of the Council and the judges of the Supreme Court could not be arrested or
imprisoned in any action or suit except in the case of treason or felony.
Besides, the Supreme Court could reprieve or suspend the execution of any capital sentence if in its opinion there was a
Proper occasion for mercy until the pleasure of the Crown was known and, thus in such case it would refer the case to the
British Crown with reasons for recommending for mercy.

14. (3) Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.—The Supreme Court was Ziven ecclesiastical jurisdiction also. It
was to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction over British subjects residing in Bengal, Bihar and
Orissa. This jurisdiction was to be exercised by it according to the ecclesiastical law prevailing in
the Diocese of London. Consequently, it could grant probates of wills to the British subjects
within the territories of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and also letters of administration for the goods,
chattels and other effects of the British subjects dying intestate or without appointing executors
of their will. It was also empowered to appoint guardians and keepers for infants and insane
persons and their estates. It was to make such appointment in accordance with the rules
prevalent in England.

15. (4) Admiralty Jurisdiction.—The Supreme Court was declared to be a Court of Admiralty for the
territories of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. It was conferred the admiralty jurisdiction in relation to
the territories of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa to the same extent as it was available to the Courts of
Admiralty in England. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, it could hear and try all cases civil and
maritime, and all maritime crimes committed upon ships, ferries, vessels and offences
committed on the high seag and offshores of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa with the help of a petty
Jury consisting of British subjects residing in Calcutta. The admiralty jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court extended to Hig Majesty’s subjects residing in the territories of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa
and also to the persons, directly or indirectly, in the service of the Company or in the service of
any of His Majesty’s subjects.

16. (5) Equity Jurisdiction—It was to be a Court of equity. It was conferred full powers to administer
justice in a summary manner according to the rules and proceedings of the High Court of
Chancery in England. The Court of Chancery in England was not bound by any technicalities of
law and coulc administer justice according to the principles of justice, equity and good
conscience. The Supreme Court was also authorised to do justice on the same principle.
(6) Writ Jurisdiction.—The Courts of Collector, Quarter Sessions, Court of Requests, Sheriffs, etc.
were put under the control and supervision of the Supreme Court. It could issue writs of
certiorari, mandamus, error or procedende to these Courts. This jurisdiction or power was given
to the Supreme Court so that it could effectively control the subordinate Courts and other
authorities of the Company engaged in the administration of justice in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.

17. Appeals.—In civil cases, the appeals from the Supreme Court could be filed in the King-in-
Council with the permission of the Supreme Court provided the subject-matter in dispute
exceeded 1000 Pagodas. The petition seeking the permission of the Supreme Court was to be
filed within a period of 6 months of the delivery of judgment. In criminal cases, the appeals from
the Supreme Court could be represented to the King-in-Council with the permission of the
Supreme Court, but in respect of such appeals the Supreme Court had full power and absolute
discretion to allow or deny the permission for such appeals. Besides, the King-in-Council
reserved the right to refuse or admit an appeal as a special case upon such terms and conditions
as it thought fit.

18. MERITS OF REGULATING ACT OF 1773
(1) The constitution of the Company was improved by the Regulating Act. The term of the
Directors of the Company before this Act was one year and consequently they failed to acquire a
grip over the affairs of the Company and they had to depend on the mercy of the shareholders.
This defect was removed by this Act to some extent by extending the term of the directors from
one year to four years.
(2) The Governor-General and Council of the Calcutta Presidency constituted the central
executing authority. The whole civil and military government of the Calcutta Presidency was
vested in them. The Presidencies of Bombay and Madras were put under the control and
superintendence of the Governor-General and Council in matters of war and peace. This was a
step towards the establishment of a strong Central Government whith could meet the Indian
princes or powers in the battlefield with the United Armed Forces of the Company’s
Government in India.

19. MERITS OF REGULATING ACT OF 1773
(3) The control of the British Government over. the Company was tightened and made more effective.
The Act made it obligatory on the part of the directors of the Company to place regularly before the
Secretary of State all their correspondence with the Indian authorities regarding civil and military
affairs of the Government in India. They were also required to place before the Treasury all
correspondences from India relating to revenues. In short, the Act put the Company’s Government in
India under the effective control and supervision of the British Government.
(4) The Governor-General and Council were empowered to make rules and regulations for the good
order of Civil Government of the Company’s settlements at Calcutta and other Subordinate factories
and places. This provision made it possible to make rules and regulations in accordance with the local
needs. To check the hasty legislation by the Governor-General and Council, several restrictions were,
imposed on their legislative bower. The rules and regulations made by them could not be effective
until they were registered:in the Supreme Court with its consent and approbation. The Supreme
Court consisted of the experts in law and therefore it was fully justified to put the legislative power of
the Governor-General and Council under the Supervision and control of the Supreme Court. The
Judges of the Supreme Court could examine the desirability of the rules and regulations made by the
Governor-General and Council before their registration.

20. MERITS OF REGULATING ACT OF 1773
(5) The Regulating Act authorized the British Crown tq establish a Supreme Court at Calcutta by
issuing a Charter and the Crown established such a Court at Calcutta by issuing the Charter of 1774.
The Judges of the Supreme Court were experts in law (and not laymen as _ before). Thus, the judicial
administration was brought under the control of the professional] lawyers (i.e, the experts in law).
This was 4 welcome change, The appointment and removal of the judges were not put in the hands of
the Company’s executive authority. These Judges were appointed by the British Crown and they were
to hold office during the Crown’s pleasure. Thus, the Regulating Act and the Charter of 1774 made
praiseworthy attempt to make the Supreme Court independent of the executive control. The
Supreme Court was conferred on wide jurisdiction. It was also empowered to superintend the Court
of Collector, Court of Requests, Quarter Sessions, etc. and for this purpose it was given power to issue
to these Courts the writs in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, procedende or error.
(6) The Supreme Court was authorised to administer common law and equity both. This enabled the
Supreme Court to administer common law, or the equity, whichever it thought better, in the interest
of the justice. If the common law and equity both had been administered by two different Courts,
there would have been possibility of conflict between the two courts and, thus, this arrangement
lessened the possibility of the conflict between the equity and common law. Impey was the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Impey was a.very controversial personality during this
period. The cases discussed in this Chapter will reveal the role played by him in the administration of
justice during this period.

21. MERITS OF REGULATING ACT OF 1773
(7) Provisions were made for the maintenance of fair and impartial administration in the
Company’s settlement in India. It was clearly provided that the Governor-General, the
Councillors and the judges of the Supreme Court could not accept presents, donations, gifts or
rewards,. etc. Similarly, civil and military officers were prevented to receive any present or
reward from any of the Indian Princes or powers, etc. Before the passing of this Act, the superior
officers of the Company were engaged in their private trade. They paid more attention to their
own trade than the performance of their duties. They were often found to have exercised their
power and position for the promotion of their trade even at the cost of the interest of the
Company. There was a great need to prevent them from carrying on their own trade so that they
could devote full time to the performance of their duties. For this purpose the Superior Officer,
eg, the Governor-General and members of the Council, Judges of the Supreme Court and other
officers engaged in the revenue collection were prohibited from engaging in private trade. In
short, several provisions were made in the Act to make the Company’s administration in India
sound, fair and impartial.

22. DEFECTS AND REMOVAL OF ITS DEFECTS
The aim of the Regulating Act was good but it was frustrated on account of the obscurity and confusion in the
provision of the Act. The uncertainty was the main defect of the Regulating Act.
The extent of the powers of the Governor-General and Council was uncertain, the extent of the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under the Act was uncertain, the relation between the Governor-General in Council and the
Supreme Court was uncertain, and also the relation between the Adalats in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and the
Supreme Court at Calcutta was uncertain.
The Act failed to define the various terms used therein like "His Majesty’s subjects" , “British subject" , etc. The
conflicting and defective provisions of the Act resulted in a conflict between the Governor-General in Council and
the Supreme Court and also between the Supreme Court and the Company’s Adalats.
 In short, the defects of the Regulating Act led to a great crisis, confusion and conflict in the Company’s territories
in India.
Removal of the defects of the Regulating Act and the Charter of 1774.—The Act of Settlement was passed in 1781
to remove out the defects of the Regulating Act. The main defect of the Regulating Act was that it was
disastrously ambiguous on many issues. The Act of Settlement was passed to explain and amend the provisions of
the Regulating Act. As to the amendments made by the Act of Settlement, 1781,

23. DEMERITS IN REGULATING ACT 1773
1. Defects Relating to the Composition of the Executive (Governor-General-in-Council)—
The decision of the Council was to be taken by majority. The Governor-General was not allowed an upper hand. Only in the
case of division among the members being equal, the Governor- General was allowed a casting vote.
Only the Governor-General and one member of the Council, Richard Barwell, were appointed from the Company’s servants
working in India and the three other Councillors, namely, Clavering, Monson and Francis, were sent from England. The
Councillors sent from England were suffering from superiority complex and they were prejudicial against the Governor-
General, Warrren Hastings.
 Consequently, a conflict between the Governor-General and his Council arose. Since the majority was against the Governor-
General, Warren Hastings, often found it very difficult to take decision on policy matters. On account of this conflict, the
efficiency of the executive Government was much lessened.
 An extreme example of this conflict is the trial of Raja Nanda Kumar. It appears that the three Councillors, Clavering, Mongo,
and Francis wanted to remove Warren Hastings and appoint any-one from themselves as Governor-General.
They wanted to prove Warren Hastings an unsuccessful administrator and for this they were ready to follow even unfair and
undesirable methods. The conflict took a serious turn in 1777, when Clavering with the support of his group declared himself
Governor-Genera] on the ground that Warren Hastings had sent his resignation which had already been accepted.
Warren Hastings denied that he had_ sent his resignation, consequently, two rival Governor-Generals and Councils started
functioning, one headed by Clavering and other by Warren Hastings.
Each claimed supreme powers of the Government. This created confusion and chaos. The issue was referred to the Supreme
Court which decided in favour of Hastings.

24. 2. Uncertainty as to the relation between the Governor- General and his Council of the Calcutta
Presidency and the Governors and their Councils of other Presidencies —
The provisions in the Regulating Act were made to place the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay
under the control and supervision of the Governor-General-in-Council of the Calcutta Presidency in
matters relating to war and peace.
The Presidencies of Bombay and Madras were required to take the prior approval of the Governor-
General in Council before declaring war or negotiating treaties for peace.
However, in cases of imminent necessity they could declare war and negotiate treaties for peace even
without the approval of the Governor-General in Council.
This exception frustrated the object of the Act. The term “imminent necessity" was not defined and
taking the advantage of it, the Governor of the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay used to take their
own decisions regarding their relations with the Indian Princes and powers’ without consulting the
Governor-General-in-Council.
 For example, the wars with the Marathas and Hyder Ali were declared without the approval the
Governor-General, in Council.
The tendency of thé Presidencies of Bombay and Madras of avoiding the authority of ‘the Governor-
General-in-Council and taking independent decisions in the matters of war and peace created a
conflict between the Governor-General-in-Council of the Calcutts Presidency and the Governor and
Council of the Bombay an Madras Presidencies

25. 3. Uncertainty and confusion as to the extent of the Legislative power of the Governor-
General and Council.—
As regards Calcutta, the Governor-General and Council was empowered under the Regulating Act to make
rules and regulations. Calcutta was under the sovereignty of the Company and consequently under the British
Crown and, therefore, the British Parliament had legal authority to authorise the Governor-General-in-Council
to make rules and regulations for the Calcutta town.
But the legislative authority of the Governor-General-in-Council to make rules and regulations for the
territories of the Bengal, Bihar and Orissa was a debatable issue.
The Company was conferred only the Diwani of the Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. It was not conferred the
sovereignty of these territories. Thus, these territories were neither under the Sovereignty of the Company nor
under the British Crown but under the sovereignty of the Moghul Emperor.
 The Governor-General-in-Council could not be authorised by the British Parliament by passing the Regulating
Act to make rules and regulations for territories of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.
In short, it appears that the Regulating Act wag intentionally made vague They wished not to interfere in
express terms either with the Moghul Emperor or with the Company which claimed under him.

26. 4. Uncertainty and confusion as to the jurisdiction, powers and position of the Supreme Court
and its relation with the Governor-General-in-Council and the Company’s Adalats (Causes of the
conflict between the Supreme Council and Supreme Court).—
The Regulating Act as well as the Charter of 1774, both failed to state with certainty the
jurisdiction, powers and position of the Supreme Court and its relation with the Supreme Court,
the Company’s Adalats and the Company’s officials.
On account of it, a conflict between the Governor-General-in-Council (.e., the Supreme Council)
and the Supreme Court arose.
 The uncertainty also created: a conflict between the Supreme Court and the Company’s
Adalats.
The causes of the conflict or the defects relating to the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme
Court are discussed in the next three slides.

27. DEFECTS RELATING TO POWERS OF
SUPREME COURT
1. The Regulating Act and the Charter of 1774 failed to define with certainty the extent of the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court-
 It was stated that the Supreme Court would exercise its jurisdiction over all British subjects and his
Majesty’s subjects residing in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, persons employed by, or directly or indirectly
in the service of, the Company or any of His Majesty’s subjects and also the inhabitants of the
territories of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa who had voluntarily entered into a contract with a subject of
His Majesty to submit the disputes to the jurisdiction of Supreme Court, provided the amount
involved in the cause of action was more than Rs. 500.
 However, the difficulty arose because the various terms like ‘British subjects’ , ‘His Majesty’s
subjects’ , person employed by; or directly or indirectly, in the service of the Company" , or ‘the
persons employed by or directly or indirectly iv the service of any of His Majesty’s subjects, etc. weré
mot defined in the Regulating Act as well as in the Charter of 1774.
On account of it, the whole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court became vague. The difference between
the terms ‘British subjects’ and His Majesty’s subjects was not pointed out.
In one sense the whole population of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa were British subjects and in another
sense, no one was a British subject who was not an English born and in a third sense, all the
inhabitants of Calcutta subject be regarded as British subjects.

28. DEFECTS RELATING TO POWERS OF
SUPREME COURT
2. The other debatable issue was whether or not the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the farmers
of revenue and Zamindars responsible for collecting revenue for the Company on commission basis in
the territories of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa-
 In Patna case, the Supreme Court held that the farmers of the revenue were indirectly in the service
of the Company and therefore they were under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The Governor-General-in-Council opposed the Supreme Court on the ground that the farmers of
revenue and the Zamindars collecting revenue on commission basis in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa could
not be taken directly or indirectly in the service of the Company and therefore they were not under
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
 Unfortunately, the terms employment and directly or indirectly in the service of the Company were
not defined in the Regulating Act and the Charter of 1774 and therefore it was very difficult to
determine the exact extent of these terms.
The Supreme Court interpreted its meaning in order to extend its jurisdiction but the Governor-
General-in-Council (i.e., the Supreme Council) opposed the tendency of the Supreme Court and
consequently the relation between the Supreme Court and Supreme Council became more tense.

29. 3. Another controversy arose as to whether or not the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the Company’s revenue officers engaged
in the collection of revenue in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa-
The Regulating Act and the Charter of 1774 both did not contain any specific and clear provisions on this issue.
The Governor-General and Council expressed the view that the Diwani function was absolutely vested in them and therefore they were to probe
into the illegalities and misdeeds of the revenue officers of the Company committed in the exercise of the Diwani functions in the territories of
Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to call into question any act of the revenue officers of the Company done in
the collection of revenue in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.
The Governor-General-in-Council further stated that they constituted the Supreme Revenue authority for Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and they were
to maintain discipline among the Company’s revenue officers engaged in performing revenue functions and the Supreme Coun had no power to
interfere in their Diwani functions.
The view of the Governor-General-in-Council was not accepted by the Supreme Court on the ground that under the Regulating Act and the
Charter of 1774 the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over all the servants of the Company and the Company’s revenue officers were also the
servants of the Company.
 Besides, the objective of the Regulating Act was to prevent the illegal activities of the Company’s officers engaged in revenue collection in Bengal,
Bihar and Orissa. Before the establishment of the Supreme Court, often the revenue officers of the Company engaged in the exercise of Diwani
function in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa were not found under the jurisdiction of any Court. Governor and Council were interested only in collection
of revenue and not in establishing a fair revenue administration. They showed less interest in controlling the misdeeds of such officers.
On these grounds, the Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction over the Company’s revenue officers in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. In the name of
preventing misdeeds and illegal activities of such officers of the Company, the Supreme Court began to hear all sorts of complaints against such
officers.
Sometimes the persons arrested by such officers for non-payment of revenue were ordered to be released, and for this purpose the Supreme
Court issued writs of Habeas Corpus without least hesitation. The Governor-General and Council became more angry on account of such
interference and they became hostile to the Supreme Court.

30. 4. There was much uncertainty and confusion as to the relation between the Company’s Adalats and the Supreme Court
and also as to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the judges or judicial officers of the Company’s Adalats-
 The Company’s Adalats were established in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa under the authority of the Moghul Emperor
granting Diwani to the Company.
The Supreme Court at Calcutta was established under the authority of the British Parliament and British Crown and it
was a royal court. The Supreme Court was to exercise jurisdiction not only over .the persons in Calcutta but also over
certain categories of persons in the territories of Bengal, Bihar and. Orissa.
The Company’s Adalats were also to exercise jurisdiction over the Hindus and Muslims residing in Bengal, Bihar and
Orissa. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was made partially concurrent with that of the Company’s Adalats.
On account of it, there was a probability of conflict between the two, the Supreme Court and the Company’s Adalat,
Unfortunately, the relation between the two was not clarified under the Regulating Act and the Charter of 1774 -and
therefore the conflict between them was bound to arise.
The Company’s Adalats were backed by the Governor-General-in-Council and therefore the conflict between the
Supreme Court’ and £ the Governor-General-in-Council arose. Besides, there was mo clear provision in the Regulating
Act and the Charter of 1774 as to the jurisdiction of Supreme Court over the Judges and Indian Law Officers of the
Company’s Adalats.
The Supreme Court expressed the view that it had jurisdiction over them because they were also servants of the
Company. The Governor- General-in-Council opposed this view of the Supreme Court and consequently the conflict
between the two became more acute.”

31. 5. The Regulating Act and the Charter of 1774 both failed to define the relation between the Governor-General-in-Council and the
Supreme Court-
The Supreme Court and the Governor-General-in-Council both were constituted by the British Crown and therefore each of them claimed
superiority over the other. Consequently, a conflict between them developed.
Besides, there were many issues which were left uncertain. For example, it was stated in the Regulating Act that the Supreme Court could
not hear and try the Governor-General and the members of this Counal for any offence except treason and felony.
On account of it, a debatable issue arose as to whether the Supreme Court could try the Governor-General and the members of his
Council for treason or felony.
The other debatable issue which arose on account of the aforesaid provisions was whether the Supreme Court could hear the civil cases
relating to the Governor-General-in-Council. It was also not certain as to whether or not the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to take
congnizance of the acts done by the Governor-General-in-Council in execution of their office.
 In addition to these, there was no clear provision in the Regulating Act as to whether or not the Supreme Court was empowered to
examine and determine the legality of the orders of the Governor-General-in-Counail. The Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over the
Governor-General and the members of his Council, on the ground that they were also servants of the Company.
The Supreme Court, thus claimed that it could try the Governor-General-inCouncil for treason or felony and could also hear civil cases
relating to them.
The Supreme Court also claimed to examine and determine the legality of the orders of the Governor-General-in-Council.
 Even the public or official acts of the Governor-General-in-Council were considered by the Supreme Court within its jurisdiction. This
claim of the Supreme Court annoyed the Governor-General-in-Council and the relation between the Supreme Court and the Governor-
General-inCouncil became tense.

32. 6. There was uncertainty and confusion as to the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court-
As regards the Calcutta town, there was no doubt as to its jurisdiction to issue writs, but as regards the territories of
Bengal, Bihar and Orissa there was much controversy as to its jurisdiction to issue writs. The Supreme Court used to
issue writs to a person outside Calcutta without least hesitation.
Sometimes the Supreme Court issued the Writs of Habeas Corpus to the Company’s revenue authorities or revenue
officers to release the persons arrested by them for non-payment of revenue.’ Besides, the witnesses were compelled to
appear before it by issuing writ of Habeas Corpus? and the Zamindars were ordered to be arrested by issuing writs.’
Writs were issued by the Supreme Court even against the members of the Council.
 This caused dissatisfaction among the Governor-General-in-Council to the extent that they began to hate the Supreme
Court. The above analysis reveals that the uncertainty as to the jurisdiction, powers and position of the Supreme Court
and es to its relation with the Governor-General-in- Council and the Company’s Courts was the root cause of the conflict
between the Supreme , Court and the Governor-General-in-Council (ze, the Supreme Council).
The seriousness of the conflict may well be realised from the leading cases like Patna case, Nand Kumar Trial ete.
They saw not that they were establishing two independent and rival powers in India, that of the Supreme Counal and
that of the Supreme Court, they drew no line to mark the boundary between them, and they foresaw not the
consequences which followed, a series of encroachments and. disputes which unnerved the powers of Government
and_ threatened their destruction.