Significance of Historical retrospect

Well said by one of the greatest constitutional experts, Ivor Jennings that “all Constitutions are the heirs of the past as well as the testators of the future.” The very fact that the Constitution of India is not the product of any political revolution but a product of research and deliberation as well as long years of struggle for freedom waged by the Indians against a colonial power in order to fashion a system of the government that would not only mark an improvement over the existing state of affairs, but also seek to fulfil the needs and aspirations of the people of India.

 How did the Constitution makers re-modelled a system of government over the existing system through endless deliberations in a representative constituent Assembly certainly makes the study of historical process of our constitution making indeed indispensable so as to completely understand the very evolution of our constitution in its present form. The only difference however in the present days’ Constitution as against the constitutional documents introduced in India by the colonial power has been that the present Constitution is the handiwork of Indian people and is thus very much Indian addressing their concerns and those cherished aspirations whereas, the constitutional documents of those 200 years were thrusted upon Indians by a colonial power to perpetuate its own rule over the teeming millions of this country. But still we learnt a lot at least, in the art of self governance from all those piecemeal constitutional experiments that the colonial masters introduced in this country. How and what we had learnt from this all, makes a recourse to the constitutional development of India worthwhile…

Regulating act, 1773

The Act passed by the British parliament, sought to control and regulates the affairs of the British East India Company both in England and India.

Why the Act Was Passed

• The dual system of government in Bengal (government jointly by the Company and the Nawab of Bengal) called for remedial action.
• The ruling circles felt that the administrative setup of the Company in England was unsatisfactory. They feared that corrupt retired servants of the Company would corrupt public life in England. The Company was on the verge of bankruptcy owing to the following factors: (a) The Court of Proprietors had raised the divided from 6 per cent to 12 percent, which drained the Company’s resources. (b) The British Government required the Company to pay it 400,000 pounds per annum from 1767 to 1772. (c) The famine in Bengal and wars in South India left the Company’s treasury empty.

Major provisions

1. The Company’s monopoly of trade with East India was extended for 20 years.
2. The Court of Directors, comprising 24 members, was to be elected for four years, with one-fourth members retiring every year.
3. The Company was required to submit copies of all correspondence received from India to the British government
4. A Governor-General and Council of four members were appointed for Bengal.
5. The Governments of Bombay and Madras Presidencies were subordinated to the Bengal Government in matters of making treaties or declaring war.
6. Establishment of a Supreme Court at Calcutta was provided for.
7. The Company’s servants were forbidden from accepting bribes or doing private trade.

Importance ofthe Act

1. It marked the beginning of British parliamentary intervention in Indian affairs.
2. The East India Company was recognized as a commercial-cum-political body.
3. The Act opened new channels for Britain’s imperial ambitions in India.

Defects int he Act

A number of defects in the Act led to many complications. Among these defects were:

1. The Act was a half measure. If left many points vague.
2. A conflict in the Governor-General’s Council caused administrative deadlock between 1774 and 1776.
3. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction was obscure. Left unclear was (a) the law coming under its purview, (b) the court’s jurisdiction over revenue and judicial officers of the Company and (c) the court’s relations with the Governor-General’s Council.
4. The Bengal Government’s control over subordinate presidencies was in practice ineffective.
5. The Act failed to improve the functioning of the Company in England.

Amending act of 1781

The Act was meant to improve the administration of justice in India.

Provisions ofthe Act

1. The Supreme Court was not to have jurisdiction over (a) the official acts of the Governor-General and his Council; (b) the Company’s revenue officers and Zamindars.
2. The Supreme Court was expected to respect the religious views and practices of Indians.
3. The Governor-General and his Council could frame regulations for the working of the civil and criminal courts. Such regulations were not expected to be registered in the Supreme Court.

Pitt’s India act, 1784

Why the Act Was Passed

1. The administrative system set up by the Regulating Act (1773) was not functioning well.
2. The Presidency Government at Madras was inefficient.
3. The Company’s financial position had deteriorated.
4. The Company had suffered reverses during the Carnatic war.

Major provisions

1. In England, the Board of Control consisting of six parliamentary commissions was appointed to control civil, military and revenue affairs of India.
2. The Court of Directors had to comply with all orders and directions of the Board.
3. The Court of Proprietors lost power to change or revise resolutions of the Court of Directors, but retained the right to appoint Governor-General, Governors, Commander-in-Chief and members of the Councils in India.
4. The strength of the Governor-General’s Council in Bengal was reduced from four to three members.
5. The control of the Governor-Central in Council over the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras was enlarged and made effective.

Implications ofthe Act

The Act set up dual government for the control of India’s Parliamentary control was exercised through the Board of Control and the Company’s control was exercised through the Court of Directors. The Act increased parliamentary control over Indian affairs. It worked towards unification of British authority in India by subordinating the Bombay and Madras Presidencies to the Bengalpresidency. It also strengthened the Governor-General’s position in his Council.

Charter act of 1793

By this act, the company Charter was renewed for 20 years and the powers of the Governor-General over Bombay and Madras Presidencies were extended.

Charter act of 1813

Why the Act Was Passed

Wellesley’s long war had created financial difficulties for the Company. The Committee of the House of Commons, which was appointed in 1808 to probe into Indian affairs, presented its fifth report in 1812 with various recommendations. Napoleon’s Continental System had closed European ports for English merchants. English merchants therefore demanded opening of Indian trade for all Englishmen.

Major provisions

1. The Company’s monopoly of trade with Indian was abolished except for trade in tea and trade with China.
2. All Englishmen could trade with India subject to certain restrictions.
3. Rules and procedures were laid down for the use of Indian revenues.
4. The Company was to annually set apart one lakh rupees for promotion of literature and education in India.

Charter act of 1833

Why the Act Was Passed

Imperial interests were demanding administrative consolidation in India. The Whig party, committed to policy of reforms, had assumed office in England. Various parliamentary committees, appointed to report on Indian affairs, had recommended major changes.

Major provisions

1. The Company’s Charter was renewed for a further 20 years, but the Company was to administer India on behalf of the British Crown.
2. The Company’s commercial monopoly was completely abolished, including the trade in tea and trade with China. Also, the Company was asked to close its commercial business at the earliest.
3. All laws made by the Governor-General in Council were henceforth to be known as Acts. Until then they were known as Regulations.
4. The Governor-General of Bengal became the Governor-General of India.
5. The Governments of Bombay and Madras were placed under the complete administrative control of the Governor-General in Council.
6. The Governments of Madras and Bombay lost legislative powers and had their financial powers circumscribed.
7. The Act provided for the appointment of a Law Commission and for the codification of laws.
8. All restrictions on Englishmen’s migration to, and acquisition of land and property in India, were removed.
9. Indian subjects of the Company were declared eligible for high public offices.
10. The Government of India was enjoined to improve the condition of slaves and abolish slavery.

Impact ofthe Act

It was an important step towards legislative and executive centralization of British administration in India. It was another step towards liquidation of the Company’s position in India. The throwing open of public services to Indians and the appointment of an Indian Law Commission led to far-reaching consequences.

Charter act of 1853

A demand was made in England for ending dual government in managing the Company’s affairs at home. The Madras and Bombay Governments demanded representation in the Central legislative body. Indians demanded the separation of executive and legislative functions. Inquiries into the working of the Indian administration called for some changes.

Provisions ofthe Act

1. The Company’s Charter continued, but indefinitely.
2. The number of Directors was reduced form 24 to 18, with six Crown nominees.
3. The Legislative Council was to consist of 12 members. These were, Governor-General, Commander-in-Chief, four ordinary members of the Governor-General’s Council, the Chief Justice of Bengal, another judge, plus a representative each from Bengal, Madras, Bombay and the North-WesternProvinces.
4. A Law Commission was to be appointed in England to examine the report of the Indian Law Commission.
5. ICS officers were to be appointed through competitive examination.

Impact ofthe Act

The Company received the final notice to be ready to quit. Parliament’s control over the Indian administration increased. A Legislative Council with local representation commenced.