Published on 02 Oct 2025
Before British Era
Introduction of Qazi system: The Arabs entered India in 712. A.D which led to Qazi system for criminal cases but retained the old panchayat system for civil cases.
Consolidation of Islamic judicial system: The Delhi sultanate further strengthened the system, but the advent of Mughals made it part of common life. They did not introduce a purely Hindu Panchayat system, but a mixture of Islamic, Persian, and local Hindu systems.
Weakness in existing system: In Pre-British Era, the judicial system, as a whole, neither adopted proper procedures nor had proper organisation of the law courts. The distribution of courts in proportion to the area was also skewed.
Difference in Hindu and Muslim Judicial System:
The Hindu system relied on honorary positions held usually by caste elders, village panchayats, or zamindars who were responsible for judicial discourse.
The Muslim system on the other hand bestowed such functions to the office of Qazi, which was usually held by a religious figure such as clergy.
During British Era
Inception of Judicial System by EIC: The beginning of a common law system can be traced to the establishment of 'Mayor's Courts' in Madras, Bombay and Calcutta in 1726
Office of Deputy Diwan: The company exercised Judicial powers through the Deputy Diwan. The Company officials looked at the former judicial system with disdain.
Constitution of Uniform Judicial System: The need was felt to have a uniform judicial system for the Company's territories to assert its sovereignty. The judicial system was centralised in 1772, on the initiative of Warren Hastings.
Judicial Reforms under Warren Hastings (1772-1785 AD)
The first Indian Penal Code: The first British Indian law code, in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, was introduced during Hastings’ period.
Bifurcation of Civil and Criminal court: Two courts were established viz the Faujdari Adalat and the Diwani Adalat which dealt with criminal cases and civil cases respectively.
Retaining of Mughal nomenclature: The Mughal nomenclature was retained, and the laws applicable were Muslim laws in criminal justice and the Muslim or Hindu laws in adjudicating personal matters such as inheritance, marriage, etc.
Appellate jurisdiction was made separate: Sadar Diwani Adalat, as court of appeal in civil cases, and the Sadar Nizamat Adalat as criminal cases appellate court, were also established in Calcutta.
The Regulating Act of 1773
Establishment of Supreme Court: In order to try both Indians and Europeans, the Supreme Court was established at Fort William in Calcutta.
Separation of power: To separate the executive and the judiciary in principle, the District Collectors were divested of their judicial duties.
Introduction of Mofussil courts: For Civil jurisprudence, instead of district courts, Provincial and mofussil courts were established, to be presided over only by European officers of the Company, designated as Judges.
Institutionalisation of the civil judicial system: The Code of 1781 prescribed specific rules and regulations to be followed in all the civil courts down to the lowest level.
Judicial Reforms under Cornwallis (1786-1793)
Introduction of Circuit Courts: District Faujdari courts were replaced by Circuit courts. It had powers of appeal for both civil and criminal cases.
Exclusion of British subjects: The jurisdiction of these criminal courts did not extend to the British-born subjects. They remained under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court at Calcutta.
Centralisation of Appellate functions: Many of the appellate functions were shifted to the hands of Governor-General in Calcutta.
Example: Sadar Nizamat Adalat was shifted
European dominance: All the courts were to be headed by European judges, leading to exclusion of Indians on racial lines. It helped cover up British wrongs behind false legal premises.
Extension of code: The Cornwallis Code was extended to Banaras in 1795 and to the Ceded and Conquered Provinces in 1803 and 1805 respectively.
Accountability of Officials: The government officials were answerable to the civil courts for the actions done in their official capacity.
Different system in Madras and Bombay: In Madras and Bombay, a different system was adopted because they were under the ryotwari system where the Collector also functioned as a Settlement Officer.
More involvement of Indians: Greater Indianization of the system took place, but only at the lower levels and there was a concentration of some judicial powers in the office of the Collector.
Example: Village panchayats, District and City courts were opened for Indian judges.
Judicial Reforms under William Bentinck (1828-1833)
Abolition of Circuit court: The four Circuit Courts were abolished and their functions transferred to collectors under the supervision of the commissioner of revenue and circuit.
Adalat setup at Allahabad: Sadar Diwani Adalat and a Sadar Nizamat Adalat were set up at Allahabad for the convenience of the people of Upper Provinces.
Remove language barrier: An option to use a vernacular language was included along with the official court language, Persian, while in the Supreme Court, the English language replaced Persian.
The Charter Act of 1833
Appointment of law commission: This threw open judicial positions to Indians and provided for the appointment of a law commission for the codification of laws.
Codification of Laws: The Law Commission under Lord Macaulay codified the laws into the Code of Civil Procedure (1859), the Indian Penal Code (1860) and the Criminal Procedure Code (1862). The new codes sought to establish the universal principles of jurisprudence.
Judicial Reforms After the Revolt of 1857
Indian High Courts Act of 1861 passed: The Act led to the establishment of several high courts in 1862 which replaced the Sadar Diwani and Sadar Nizamat Adalats as the courts of appeal.
Judicial decentralisation: Subsequently, High Courts were established at Allahabad (1869), Patna (1916), Lahore (1919) etc. apart from Calcutta, Bombay and Madras.
Decline of Islamic justice system: Owing to the Macaulay committee, the penal code and criminal procedure code came into force, which led to the Islamic system of justice disappearing in 1862.
Appointing authority: The Crown was empowered to appoint the Chief Justice and Judges for these High Courts. The appeal against the decisions of high courts was tabled only before Privy council.
Judicial Reforms in Government of India Act of 1935
Federal court established: It also provided for the establishment of a Federal Court, which was set up in 1937 with appellate and advisory jurisdiction. Its appellate jurisdiction was extended to civil and criminal cases.
Modification of arrangements: The Rule of appointing the Chief Justices of HCs exclusively from among barristers or advocates was modified to include the pleaders and Indian Civil Service officers.
Analysis of British Judicial Reforms
Positives of Judiciary under the British
Idea of Rule of law and independence of judiciary: Rule of law along with the concept of an independent judiciary was introduced through the British regime.
Separation of power: Through their laws and policies, the separation of powers was introduced, whereby autonomy and a fair and impartial system were sought to be established.
Federal nature in judiciary: The federal form of governance, vis a vis the provinces, and the Provincial Courts with the Federal Court as the final authority, was brought into India.
Codification and uniformity of law: Through the Law Commissions under Macaulay India finally had a definite set of laws that could be applied uniformly.
Fair and impartial system: The idea of where the judiciary was independent from the other organs of state, came to India only via the British.
Europeans brought under jurisdiction: Such inclusion though in limited sense were only in criminal cases. Moreover, they could be tried by European judges only.
Negatives of Judiciary under the British
Procedural Complexity: Judiciary was burdened with complex procedures, which made the common man difficult to comprehend. The rich could manipulate the system.
Expensive Affair: The complexity in procedure led to the domination of lawyers, on whom the people had to depend, in their quest for justice. This was largely misused by legal faculty.
Prominence of Rich in legal discourse: There was ample scope for false evidence, deceit and chicanery. Through which the rich and powerful, who could afford legal procedure, dominated it.
Overburdened and pendency: The number of cases in the courts began to increase due to complexity which started to pile up causing inordinate delays in justice delivery, a practice which continues even today.
Poor awareness of local setup: Often, the European judges were not familiar with the Indian usage and traditions.
History & Culture
Judicial reforms During British Era
Qazi system
Islamic judicial system
Mayor's Courts
Deputy Diwan
Judicial Reforms under Warren Hastings
Indian Penal Code
Civil and Criminal court
Faujdari Adalat
diwani adalat
Sadar Nizamat Adalat
Regulating Act of 1773
Judicial Reforms under Cornwallis
Circuit Courts
Cornwallis Code
Judicial Reforms under William Bentinck
Charter Act of 1833
Appointment of law commission
Codification of Law
Code of Civil Procedure
Criminal Procedure Cod
General Studies Paper 1
Modern Indian History
Related Articles