1791 Cornwallis organized a regular Police force to maintain law and order by going back to and modernizing the old Indian system of thanas (circles) in district under a Daroga (an Indian) and a Superintendent of Police (SP) at the head of a district. He relieved the zamidaras of their police duties.

1808 Mayo appointed an SP for each division helped by a number of spies (goyendas) but these spies committed depredations on local people.

1814 By an order of the Court of Directors, the establishment of Darogas and their subordinates was abolished in all possessions of the Company except in Bengal.

Bentinck (Governor-General, 1828-35) abolished the office of SP. The Collector/Magistrate was now to head the police force in this jurisdiction and the Commissioner in each division was to act as the SP. This arrangement resulted in a badly-organized police force, putting a heavy burden on the Collector/Magistrate. Presidency towns were the first to have the duties of Collector/Magistrate separated.

Police Commission (1860) – its recommendations led to the Indian Police Act 1861. The Commission recommended

*    A system of Civil Constabulary-maintaining the village set-up in the present form (a village watchman maintained by the village) but in direct relationship with the rest of the Constabulary.

*    Inspector General as the head in a province, Deputy Inspector General as the head in a Range and Superintendent of Police as the head in a District.

The police gradually succeeded in curbing criminal acts, such as dacoity, thugee, etc. But while dealing with the public, the attitude of the Police was unsympathetic[1]. The Police was also used to suppress the national movement.

The British did not create an All-India Police. The Police Act 1861 presented the guidelines for a police set-up in the provinces. The ranks were uniformly introduced all over the country.

1902 The Police Commission recommended the CID (Criminal Investigation Department) in the provinces and a Central Intelligence Bureau at the Centre.

Earlier, the administration of justice used to be under the zamindars and the process of dispensing justice often used to be arbitrary.

Reforms under Warren Hastings (1772-85)

*    District Diwani Adalats were established in districts to try civil disputes. These Adalats were placed under the Collector and had Hindu Law applicable for Hindus and the Muslim Law for Muslims. The Appeal from District Diwani Adalats lay to the Sadar Diwani Adalat which functioned under a President and two members of the Supreme Council.

*    District Fauzdari Adalats were set up to try criminal disputes and were placed under an Indian also were under the general supervision of the Collector. Muslim law was administered in Fauzadari Adalats. The approval for capital punishment and acquisition for property lay to the Sadar Nizamat Adalat at Murshidabad which was  headed by a Deputy Nizam (an Indian Muslim) assisted by Chief Qazi and Chief Mufti.

*    Under the Regulating Act of 1773, a Supreme Court was established at Calcutta which was competent to try all British subjects within Calcutta and the subordinate factories, including Indians and Europeans. It had original and appellate jurisdiction. Often, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court clashed with that of other courts.

Reforms under Cornwallis (1786-93)

*    The District Fauzdari Courts abolished and instead, circuit courts were established at Calcutta, Dacca, Murshidabad and Patna. These Circuit Courts had European judges and were to act as courts of appeal for both civil and criminal cases.

*    The Sadar Nizamat Adalat was shifted to Calcutta and was put under the Governor-General and members of the Supreme Council assisted by the Chief Qazi and the Chief Mufti.

*     The District Diwani Adalat was now designated as the District, City or the Zillah Court and placed under a District Judge. The Collector was now responsible only for the revenue administration with no magisterial functions.

*    A gradation of Civil Courts was established (for both Hindu and Muslim laws)-

i.     Munsiff’s Court under Indian officers.

ii.    Registrar’s Court under a European judge.

iii.   District Court under the District Judge.

iv.    Four Circuit Courts as Provincial Courts of appeal.

v.     Sadar Diwani Adalat at Calcutta.

vi.    King-in council for appeals of 5000 Pounds and above.

*    The Cornwallis Code was laid out-

-      separation of revenue and justice administration, -       European subjects were also brought under jurisdiction, -                Government subjects were answerable to the Civil Courts for actions done in their official, capacity.

-      The principle of sovereignty of law established.

Reforms under William Bentinck (1828-33)

*    The four Circuit Courts were abolished and their functions transferred to Collectors under the supervision of the Commissioner of revenue and circuit.

*    Sadar Diwani Adalat and a Sadar Nizamat Adalat were set up at Allahabad for the convenience of the people of Upper Provinces.

*    Till now, Persian was the official language in courts. Now, the suitor had the option to use Persian or a vernacular language, while in the Supreme Court English language replaced Persian.

1833: A Law Commission was set up under Macaulay for codification of Indian Laws. As a result, a Civil Procedure Code (1859), an Indian Penal Code (1860) and a Criminal Procedure Code (1861) were prepared.

1860: It was provided that the Europeans can claim no special privileges except in criminal cases, and no judge of an Indian origin could try them.

1865: The Supreme Court and the Sadar Adalats were merged into three High Courts at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras.

1935: The Government of India Act provided for a Federal Court (set up in 1937) which could settle disputes between Governments and could hear limited appeals from the High Courts.

Positive aspects of judiciary under the British

*     The rule of law was established.

*    The codified laws replaced the religious and personal laws of the rulers.

*    Even European subjects were brought under the jurisdiction, although in criminal cases, they could be tried by European judges only.

*    Governmnt servants were made answerable to the Civil Courts.

The Negative Aspects

*    The judicial system became more and more complicated and expensive. The rich could manipulate the system.

*    There was ample scope for false evidence, deceit and chicanery.

*    Dragged on litigation meant delayed justice.

*    Courts became overburdened as litigation increased.

*    Often, the European judges were not conversant with the Indian usage and traditions.