The Plan of 1774, and the Reforms Down to 1780

That is the arrangement that produced the Patna Case and Sarup Chand's case, both of which are proceedings against a Provincial Council for what it did while acting as a court. When you reach those chapters, remember that the Council in each was doing exactly what the 1775 arrangement told it to do.

The reform of 1780: separating civil justice from revenue

By 1780 two pressures had made a change unavoidable. The Supreme Court, established at Calcutta in 1774, was suing the Provincial Councils and their officers for what they did in their judicial character, and the collection of revenue was suffering. And the Councils themselves, being revenue bodies with judicial work added, were doing the judicial work badly.

In 1780 the Governor-General and Council, "considering that important changes had taken place in the constitution and civil government of those provinces since 1772", passed Regulations for the more effectual and regular administration of justice in the provincial civil courts. The central change was the separation of civil jurisdiction from revenue jurisdiction: the Provincial Councils kept the revenue, and civil justice was given to a separate set of courts, with the Sadar Diwani Adalat above them.

Later in the same year all existing regulations respecting the Sadar and Provincial Courts were consolidated and amended, and early in 1781 a revised Code was issued.

Two features of these Regulations are worth noticing for later chapters. They were expressed to be binding only until a new arrangement should be made by authority of Parliament, which is an admission that the Company knew the question was above its head. And they were not registered in the Supreme Court, and probably were never registered, which under the Regulating Act meant that the Supreme Court was not bound to recognise them at all. Both facts point straight at the Settlement Act of 1781.

Why MU calls it "recognition in 1780"

The syllabus label is "Reforms under the plan of 1774 and Recognition in 1780", and students often ask what is being recognised.

Two things, and an answer can safely give both.

The Company recognised that justice is not a branch of revenue collection. From 1772 to 1780 the man who collected was the man who judged. The Regulations of 1780 accepted that the two functions had to be in different hands, and gave the civil courts a separate existence with the Sadar Diwani Adalat at their head.

And the Sadar Diwani Adalat was recognised as a real court, given a settled constitution and a body of rules, instead of being merely the Governor and two Councillors hearing appeals when they had time. It is from this point that it can be described as an institution, and by the Settlement Act of the following year Parliament itself would recognise it, which is the strongest sense of the word.

A worked example

Follow one dispute through all three arrangements.

Bhagwan, a tenant in the Dinajpur district, says the revenue officer has distrained his crop wrongly.

Under the plan of 1772. He sues in the Mofussil Diwani Adalat. The judge is the Collector, who is the superior of the officer complained of. Appeal to the Sadar Diwani Adalat, which is the Governor and two Councillors.

Under the changes of 1775. He sues before the amil, who is himself a revenue officer. Appeal to the Provincial Council of Dinajpur, which supervises the revenue of the division. Appeal from there, with restrictions, to the Governor-General and Council as the Sadar Adalat.

After 1780. He sues in a civil court which is not part of the revenue establishment, and appeals to the Sadar Diwani Adalat. The Provincial Council keeps the revenue and loses the judicial work.

The complaint is the same in all three. Only in the third is he complaining to somebody other than the department complained of.

Distinctions worth having straight

What beginners get wrong

"The plan of 1774 was a new judicial plan by Hastings." It was not Hastings's plan and there is no single document called the plan of 1774. What MU's label refers to is the series of changes made by the new Council after the Regulating Act took effect, of which the principal ones are the arrangements of 1775 described above.

"1780 abolished the Provincial Councils." It did not. They kept the revenue. What they lost was the judicial work.

"The Regulations of 1780 bound the Supreme Court." They did not. They were not registered in the Supreme Court, and under the Regulating Act a regulation that was not registered there was not something the Court had to recognise. That is one of the reasons the quarrel could not be settled in India.

Limits and criticism

The period from 1774 to 1780 is the least tidy in this paper and it is worth saying why rather than apologising for it.

Bengal had, at the same time, a Company government whose members were at war with each other, a brand new Crown court that did not accept the Company's courts as courts, and a plan of administration being rewritten every second year. Nobody was in a position to make a settlement, because no authority in India was superior to both the Council and the Court.

The Regulations of 1780 themselves say so, in the clause that limits their operation until Parliament should make a new arrangement. The Company had reached the end of what it could do by itself, and everything after this chapter, the Settlement Act of 1781 and the Cornwallis plans, is done under an authority the Company did not have.

Quick revision

• The plan of 1772 was altered because the Regulating Act gave Hastings a Council that outvoted him; the new members arrived in October 1774.
• 1775: revenue superintendence to six Provincial Councils (Calcutta, Burdwan, Dacca, Murshidabad, Dinajpur, Patna); Collectors recalled; civil justice in the districts to Indian amils; appeal to the Provincial Council, then to the Governor-General and Council as the Sadar Adalat.
• 1780: civil jurisdiction separated from revenue jurisdiction; the Sadar Diwani Adalat given a settled place. Regulations consolidated later that year; a revised Code in 1781.
• The 1780 Regulations were expressed to last only until Parliament made a new arrangement, and were not registered in the Supreme Court.

Test yourself

1. Why was the plan of 1772 altered so soon after it was made? Because the Regulating Act gave the Governor-General a Council of four, and under section 8 the majority decided. The three Councillors who arrived in October 1774 voted together and outvoted Hastings, and the changes of 1775 are theirs.

2. What did the changes of 1775 do to the district civil courts? They recalled the European Collectors, transferred civil justice to Indian amils, and made the six Provincial Councils the appellate courts, with a further appeal to the Governor-General and Council as the Sadar Adalat. Revenue and justice were more closely united than before, not less.

3. What is meant by the "recognition in 1780"? The separation of civil jurisdiction from revenue jurisdiction, and the recognition of the Sadar Diwani Adalat as a settled court with rules of its own rather than an occasional sitting of the Governor and two Councillors.

4. Why did the 1780 Regulations not settle the quarrel with the Supreme Court? Because they were made by the Company, were expressed to last only until Parliament acted, and were not registered in the Supreme Court, so the Court was not bound to recognise them. Only an Act of Parliament could settle it, and that is the Settlement Act of 1781.