THE MAYOR’S COURT

The charter of 1726 provided for the establishment of a corporation in each

presidency town. The charter is considered to be an important landmark in the
history of legal system in India as it introduced the English laws into the country.

Factors Leading to the Establishment of Mayor’s Court

Before 1726 there were different judicial system functioning in the British
Settlement, which were increased in number by 1726. As a result the servants of
the many, working at such different settlements were subject to different sets of
courts. There was, thus a lack of uniformity in the British settlements, for the
same offence wild entail different and sometimes Contrary Penal Consequence.
There was also another factor which compelled the Company to have a uniform
law.

There were quite important distinguishing feature between the Company’s

Mayer’s Court and the Crown’s Mayor’s Courts established under the Charter of
126. The main differences are given below,

(1) the Mayor’s Court under the Charter of 1687 was created by the Company
while the Mayor’s Courts under the Charter of 1726 drew their power directly
from the Crown. Thus the latter were on a superior footing than the former

(2) The Charter of 1687 created only one Mayor’s Court at Madras, it did not
touch the judicial system prevailing in other settlements, presidencies under the
Company. The Charter of 1726 created Mayor’ Courts at all the three presidencies
that is Madras, Calcutta and Bombay thus, for the first time, establishing a
uniform judicial system.

(3) The Mayor’s Court established under the Charter of 1687 enjoyed both civil
and criminal jurisdiction. While the mayor’s courts established under the Charter
of 1726 mayor’s Courts established under the Charter of ( were given jurisdiction
in civil matters including testamentary and probate of wills jurisdiction, Criminal
matters were left to be decided by am within the jurisdiction of, Governor-in-
Council which acted as a court i such matters.

(4) The Charter of 1726 made, for the first time, a provisions for a second appeal
to the King-in-Council which became a precursor of the Privy Council later on.
Thus under this Charter, the first appeal could be filed before the Governor-in-
Council and the second (although in some cases) appeal could be taken to the
King-in-Council in England. The Charter of 1687 did not make such provision. The
appeal from the Mayor’s court could be filed before the Admiralty Court.

(5) The Mayor’s Court established under the Charter of 1687 made a provision for
the representation of the natives on the court. The Crown’s Mayors Courts did
not have any such representation, though there was a provision I for the same in
the Charter of 1726.

(6) No doubt, the Crown’s Mayor’s Courts established under the charter of 1726
were definitely superior courts so far as their status is concerned, but in strict
judicial and legal manner, the Company’s Mayor’s Court was better equipped, for
there was a provision for a lawyer-member who was to be called the Recorder.
The Charter of 1726 although it purported to improve the judicial system in India,
did not make any such provision. . Thus the Courts established in 1726 were
mostly composed of Company’s civil servants who did not have sufficient
experience in legal matters.

(7) There was yet another important distinction between the two Mayor’s Courts.
The Company’s Mayor Court evolved its own procedure and dispensed justice in
accordance with the rules of common sense, equity and good conscience. It
avoided the intricate procedural technicalities. But the Charter of 1726 which
introduced the British laws into India brought all the legal technicalities of the
British Courts of law. Thus the entire gamut of British laws and its procedure were
foisted on the Courts established under the Charter of 1726.

(8) The Charter of 1726, in a way, did away with the concept of separation
between the executive and the judiciary in criminal matters. The Governor-in-
Council acted as the criminal court while the Mayor’s Courts handled only the civil
matters and testamentary and probate of wills cases. On the other hand, the
Mayor’s Court at Madras was invested with power to handle all civil and criminal
matters and appeals from its decisions went to the Admiralty Court rather than
the Governor-in-Council.

The Charter of 1726 also constituted a Mayor’s Court for each of the presidency
towns consisting of a Mayor and nine Aldermen. Three of them i.e., the Mayor or
senior Alderman together with two other Aldermen were required to be present
to form the quorum of the Court. The Mayor’s Courts were declared to be present
to fan the quorum of the Court. The Mayor’s Courts were declared to be Courts of
record and were authorized to try, hear and determine all civil actions and pleas
between party and party. The Court was also granted testamentary jurisdiction id
power to issue letters of administration to the legal heir of the deceased person.
It was authorized to exercise its jurisdiction over all persons living in the
presidency own and working in the Company’s subordinate factories.

Appeals from decisions of Mayor’s Court were filed in the Court of Governor and
Council. A second appeal in cases involving 1000 pagodas or more could be made
to king-in-council in England. The court of Governor and Council also decided
criminal cases.

Mayor’s Courts under the Charter of 1687 and 1726:

Comparison— Apart from the apparent similarity of names there was a vast
difference between the two Charters. The main differences may be enumerated
as under:

(1) The Charter of 1687 applied to Madras only while the Charter of 1726 applied
to all the three Presidencies.

(2) The Mayor’s Court established under the Charter of 1726 had the jurisdiction
in Civil matters only in addition to its testamentary and probate jurisdiction, while
the court under the Charter of 1687 had the jurisdiction in criminal matters also.
(3) Appeals against the judgments of the Mayor’s Court under the Charter of 1687
went to the Court of Admiralty while from the Mayor’s Court under the Charter of
1726, to the King-in-Council.

(4) The Mayor’s Court of 1687 was a Court of the Company while the court
established under the Charter of 1726 was the Court of the Crown.

(5) The Mayor’s Court under the Charter of 1687 was better in one respect that it
had a lawyer-member called Recorder while in the Court under Charter of 1726
there was no provision for any lawyer-member.

(6) In procedural matters, the court under the Charter of 1726 had to observe the
technicalities of the courts in England while the Court under Charter of 1687 was
guided by its own procedure of convenience.

(7) In the Court under Charter of 1687 there was good representation of Indians
while under the Charter of 1726 in spite of the provision for two Indian members
none was ever appointed in practice.

(8) Under the Charter of 1726 the criminal jurisdiction was completely assigned to
the executive, i.e., the Governor and Council, while under the earlier Charter it
belonged to the Mayor’s Court and the Admiralty Court.

Charter of 1726

The origin of the Mayors Courts is embedded deep in the Legal History of India.
The Justice that was administered by the East India Company at Madras, Bombay
& Calcutta was uncertain & lacked uniformity. The English Government felt the
need for instituting Royal Courts on a uniform basis in all presidency towns,
reserving ultimate power in the Crown-in-council. This was accomplished with the
Company's Charter of 1726, the three towns were to have Corporations. The
Mayor and Aldermen constituted the 'Mayor's Court' with right of appeal to the
'Governor and his Council' and thereafter to 'the King in Council'.
The Mayor's Court had civil and probate (will) Jurisdiction and was not subject to
the arbitrary will of the executive. Madras had a corporation and Mayor's Court
from 1688 but its criminal jurisdiction was taken away. The Charter of 1726
undermined the powers of the Mayor's Courts and made the local Governor in
council all powerful. Originally Mayor's Court was a court of record with criminal
and civil jurisdiction. It was to deal with offences which imposed fine,
imprisonment or corporeal punishment. A right of appeal to the Court of
Admiralty was guaranteed, in Civil and Criminal cases. The Mayor and two
Alderman formed the quorum of the Mayor's court sitting once a fortnight. The
jury system appears to have been followed in Mayor's court in criminal
proceedings. But, under the Charter of 1726, the Mayor and Alderman of each
corporation constituted a court. The Court met not more than thrice a week. The
process of the court was given testamentary jurisdiction. Probate and letters of
administration could be granted by it. It was bound by the laws and procedures of
English Courts.

The Corporation and the Mayor's court, were completely independent of the
Executive. Hence, the Charter of 1726 introduced independence of the judiciary
to a considerable extent. The Crown's Charter of 1754 introduced certain
changes. The Mayor was selected by the Governor in Council. Hence, he was a
nominee of the Govt. The aldermen were also chosen by Governor in criminal
court. Requests Courts were introduced for cheaper and speedy trials in minor
cases up to Rs. 15/-. This court was subservient to the Council. These charters
introduced English procedural laws in India.

The Mayor's Court entertained suits between natives if both the parties agreed.
The object was not to interfere with the local people. Hence, the court was mainly
available to the Europeans. The result was there were no courts to the Indian
people. The structure of the courts was as follows:

Civil cases
-Court of Requests.
-Mayor's Courts
-Privy Council.

Criminal Cases
-Justice of the Peace.
-Court of Quarter Session.
-Defects of the Judicial system of 1753

i)   As the Governor in Council was appointing the judges, the judges were
subservient and could not render justice when the E.I. Company was' a party.
ii)   Judges were not aware of the civil and criminal law.
iii) The Mayor & others had private trade activities.
iv)  Jurisdiction was confined to Presidency towns only. Hence, in Moffusils
Englishmen could do injustice & escape.

Committee Report 1772

In 1772, The House of Commons in England, appointed a Committee which

reported against the efficiency of Mayor's Court. The RegulatingAct of 1774
passed by British Parliament replaced Mayor's Court with the Supreme Court of
Judicature at Calcutta. This consisted of professional lawyers appointed as judges,
by the Crown, Hence, the court became free from the subordination of the
Company. Later the Mayor Courts at Madras
and Bombay were also replaced by Supreme Courts.