This article has been written by Anindita Deb, a student of Symbiosis Law School, Noida. The objective of this article is to analyse the famous Cossijurah case, which highlights the conflicts between the Supreme Court and the Colonial Government.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Cossijurah case is a landmark case in the history of law and order during the Colonial Rule in India. The Supreme Court’s and the Supreme Council’s conflicts gained a peak in this case. While the Supreme Court instructed the sheriff to use force to carry out the court’s commands, the Supreme Council instructed its troops to defend the court’s orders. The Supreme Court also claimed jurisdiction over the entire native population, which the Supreme Council opposed. Because of these anomalies, this case is historically significant.
Background
On October 22, 1774, in Calcutta, Bengal, the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William was established. The Regulating Act of 1773 gave it legal status. The Mayor’s Court, which had been in session in Calcutta since 1753, was replaced by this court. Until 1862, when the Indian High Courts Act of 1861 established the High Court of Calcutta, British India’s highest court was the supreme court of judicature.
The Supreme Council of Bengal was also established in Calcutta in 1773 under the Regulating Act of 1773. Until 1833, it was considered the highest level of executive government in British India. The Governor-General presided over this council, which was made up of five members, including the Governor-General himself. Governor-General-in-Council was another name for the council. The council was formally subjected to the British crown and the East India Company’s Board of Directors.
Conflicts over court’s jurisdiction
The conflicts between the Governor-General-in-Council and the Supreme Court are the highlights of the first 6-8 years after the establishment of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Calcutta.
The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction had been specified in the Regulating Act of 1773, although many issues were left unclear in the Act, causing confusion. This resulted in a tumultuous relationship between the court and the council. The Supreme Court’s official penned jurisdiction, according to the Regulating Act of 1773, was all British subjects in Bengal and anyone employed directly or indirectly by the said United Company. The confrontation between the court and the Governor-General-in-Council became inevitable because the words “directly or indirectly” could be applied to practically everyone who worked for the company.
From 1774 to 1782, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over anybody resident in Bengal, Orissa, or Bihar after its formation in 1774. For eight years, this was the source of a heated dispute between the Supreme Court and the Governor-General-in-Council. The conflict was finally put to rest in 1782 when the Bengal Judicature Act of 1781 was passed. The Bengal Judicature Act of 1781 limited the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to people who lived in Calcutta or any British subject resident in Bengal, Orissa, or Bihar. The Act abolished the Supreme Court’s contentious jurisdiction over anyone resident in Bengal, Odisha, or Bihar.
The Cossijurah Case (1779-80)
Facts of the case
Raja Sundernarain, zamindar of Cossijurah (Kasijora), owed Cossinaut Babu a huge sum of money (Kashinath). Despite Cossinaut Babu’s best efforts, the money was not recovered from the Raja. As a result, he launched a civil suit at the Supreme Court of Calcutta against the Raja of Cossijurah. Raja was arrested when the Supreme Court issued a writ of Capias.
Raja went into hiding in order to avoid serving the writ since he was terrified. The Council published a notice alerting all landowners that they did not need to pay attention to the Supreme Court’s proceedings unless they were either an employee of the firm or had consented to the court’s jurisdiction. The Raja was also expressly notified by the council, and the Council further ordered the collector of Midnapur (an Orissa district) to refuse the Sheriff and his men any assistance. As a result, when the Sheriff of the SC arrived with a writ to arrest the Raja of Cossijurah, his people drove him away.
The conflict of jurisdiction in the case
On the 12th of November 1779, the SC issued another writ of sequestration to seize the property of Raja’s house in order to compel him to appear in court. The Raja was imprisoned by the British, who are reported to have violated the sacredness of the family idol by entering the Zenana. Meanwhile, the Governor-General and Council directed Colonel Ahmuty, the commander of the armed forces, to deploy a strong force to intercept and arrest Sheriff and his party and further release Raja.
The sheriff and his party were arrested on December 3rd, 1779, and held in confinement for three days. They were then deported to Calcutta as prisoners, but the Sheriff’s party was released by the Council, who also directed Colonel Ahmuty to release any additional writs issued by the Supreme Court.
Later Developments
Cossinaut Babu filed a lawsuit against the Governor-General and the council members individually. The Governor-General and councilors refused to appear in court because the act was committed while they were acting in their official capacities. The Council announced that those living outside of Calcutta in Bengal do not have to submit to the court and that they will preserve the locals’ interests even if they have to use armed forces.
Army officers refused to let the SC’s officials serve the writ on the Council members. The SC judges and members became enraged and felt humiliated. The SC took proceedings against North Naylor, the Company’s Attorney General because the members of the council were not served with the writ. Since this sentence was deemed “exemplary,” he was committed to prison and no bail was granted.
The members of the council were not exempt from the civil action, despite the fact that no action was taken against them. “If they believed themselves not amenable to the court, they ought to plead to the jurisdiction or demur to the plaint; and if they were dissatisfied with our Judgements, the Charter had given them a remedy via appeal,” Justice Impey said when hearing the matter. The SC would not allow the Councilors to withdraw their appearances, even though it had no legal authority to do so. The conflicts between the council and the court grew. No one was prepared to make a compromise. The plaintiff, Cossinaut Babu, dropped his lawsuit against the Governor-General and his council, as well as the Raja of Cossijurah, on March 12, 1780.
Observations and questions
The Cossijurah case raises two critical issues that must be addressed:
- Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over zamindars.
- Who was the decision-making authority in this case?
With regard to the first issue, the councilors could not remove their protection of the Raja of Cossijurah without jeopardising their influence and prestige. In response to the second question, the Supreme Court Judges had the ability to assess the legal status of zamindars, whereas the council did not.
“I genuinely mourn our differences to the Judges: yet it was unavoidable,” Warren Hastings wrote in a letter to John Purling. I believe you will back us; if you do not, rest assured that Bengal, and by consequence, India, would be lost to the British Empire.” The contents of this letter revealed that Warren Hastings valued the council’s power over his friendship with Impey. Warren Hastings proclaimed, “We are on the verge of an open battle with the Court,” when he ordered the military to arrest the court’s Sheriff.
In response to these events, a petition was sent to the British Parliament in March 1779, signed by all major British residents of Bengal, company servants, and zamindars, protesting the excesses of the SC in Bengal. As a result, a parliamentary committee was formed, which later presented before the parliament a detailed report. As a result, the parliament passed the Act of Settlement, 1781.
The Act of Settlement : some key points
The Act of Settlement was a 1781 Amending Act passed by the British Parliament on July 5, 1781, to correct the flaws in the Regulating Act of 1773. The Declaratory Act of 1781 is another name for it. Following are some salient features of the Act:
- Changes in the Supreme Court’s powers: Previously subjected employees of the company were now exempted from the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
- Jurisdiction in a Revenue Matter: Expressly s Set the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in revenue disputes to a specific limit.
- Exemption for Jamindars and landholders: The Supreme Court will not have jurisdiction over anyone who holds the position of a landholder, farmer, or company employee.
- The company’s provisional court had been recognised.
- Sadar Diwani Adalat was recognised as the chief court. The Act established the Sadar Diwani Adalat as a court of appeal to handle civil appeals from company courts.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of Judicature’s early years in Fort William, Bengal, was tumultuous. During these years, there were several conflicts between the Governor-General-in-Council and the Supreme Court. The majority of these disagreements were over who had jurisdiction over certain subjects. Conflicts over jurisdiction between the council and the court were evident in disputed cases such as the Cossijurah Case.
This sequence of confrontations continued until 1781 when the Bengal Judicature Act was passed. It established the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in respect to the council and resolved disputes between the Governor-General-in-Council and the Supreme Court.
References
- https://www.slideshare.net/reshmasuresh1884/cossijurah-case
- https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4627-conflict-between-supreme-court-and-supreme-council.html
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
