The concept of courts is not new in the country. The difference between past and present is due to the changes in the requirements and the functioning of the courts. The court that functioned during the 1700s was the ‘mayor’s court’. It was established through the charter and consisted of the mayor, attorneys, bailiffs, and aldermen. It was also declared as the court of records. The role of mayors and attorneys at that were different as compared to the present.
The procedures of the Mayor’s Court were different in the aspects of bail, plaints, etc. the languages of the plants differed, and the positions of the attorneys were also focused on various criteria. The trial of the witnesses was also carried out by a separate set of rules. All the procedures got established and the system of Present-day courts emerged.
CONDITION OF LITIGANT’S IN MAYOR’S COURT
The profession of lawyers was not respected and recognized in the era of the Mayor’s court. At first, the lawyers were considered as the layman and their legal knowledge were not considered to be useful by the courts, the lawyers were not made based on their education .at times, and clerks were also appointed as the lawyers. The recognition of lawyers started after a long period of struggle and then they were given the authorities that they possessed. The rules and regulations for the attorneys then started developing along with the emergence of the Mayor’s Court in Madras, Bombay, and other provinces of the country.
It is important to know that the powers and limitations of the attorneys at that time were different. A different set of rules and regulations regulated them and defined their powers and authorities. Several kinds of attorneys existed at that time with different powers vested upon them.
Magistrate attorneys: these were the litigants that were appointed to perform several tasks of the magistrate. Such attorneys had powers of a case for which they got appointed and handled the case without the magistrate’s interference. They were not present at the court all the time and were called at the time of work. Such attorneys had to possess some qualifications to be appointed for the position.
Prosecuting attorney: This attorney is the attorney that represents the case on behalf of the prosecution. They had to be a public official to present a case on behalf of the government over a criminal matter. Such prosecutors were appointed by the mayor on the approval of the Municipal Council. The power of the prosecuting attorney included the changing of moving violation to non-moving violation. After the appointment of the prosecuting officer, he remained the only authority to dismiss a case. Such attorneys were not required to always be present at the court.
Litigants in general: The Prosecutor served at the pleasure of the mayor and the mayor held the power of removal of the prosecutor without any official notice or approval of the aldermen. Similarly, based on the misconduct of the litigant, the mayor might suspend the litigant or the attorney. The behavior of the attorney played a vital role to be consistent in the mayor’s court. The decrease in the quality of the submissions caused a loss to the reputation as well as the earnings of the attorneys.
CONDITIONS VIS-À-VIS CHARTER OF 1687 V CHARTER OF 1726
The situations that prevailed in the mayor’s court during the first charter, created some issues that made the authorities think about passing the next charter with some changes in the mayor’s court. The changes aimed at improving the conditions and situations in the provinces. As the development took place, the issues also increased and led to the changes in the rules and regulations of the Mayor’s court. The conditions of litigants differed a little at some aspects such as:
• The position of the ‘Recorder’ under the Charter of 1687 was held by only legal professionals or lawyers whereas in the Charter of 1726 such authority was taken away and layman could also act as a recorder.
• The procedures were not established in regards to the procedures to follow in 1687 whereas, in Charter of 1726, the procedure of English Courts came in existence which was strict to be followed by the attorneys too.
• The attorneys under Charter of 1687 had the power and opportunity of taking up both civil and criminal cases whereas, under Charter of 1726, the jurisdiction of criminal cases was removed which lessened the scope for the litigants.
• The attorneys had the authority over dismissing criminal cases under 1687 whereas, In the Charter of 1726, such power came under the Governor and Council to hear appeals and give decisions on criminal cases.
The development of the charters gave some of the benefits as well as some of the rights got restricted. The changes took place to balance the happenings in the Mayor’s Court. The inclusion of the major criteria in the court made the administration well manageable. The charter of 1726 included the British laws in India that made the system different and the instances related to criminal cases also passed in the hands of the Governor
POST MAYOR COURT ERA: ESTABLISHMENT OF SUPREME COURT
The situation was continuously becoming more dynamic from static with the passing of time vis a vis need for better legal architecture arises as mayor courts was not able to fulfill the need of the hour effectively. In order to improve the ongoing situation under royal charter of 1774 the supreme of judicature was established. The establishment of Supreme Court in late 1700’s brought a paradigm shift for the litigants in India. Now, more and more barristers started coming to courts for working as advocates, legal knowledge and experience was given importance. The Supreme Court which established in 1774 was turn down to be a successful model as a result of which replica of same has been created at Madras and Bombay in the year 1801 and 1823 respectively.
A lot of changes occurred after that inter alia Chamier Committee also known as the Indian Bar Committee was set up for removing the discrepancies and variance among Vakils and Barristers, Establishment of Indian Bar Council Act of 1926, All India Bar Committee 1951 and Supreme Court of India in the year 1950 with a specification of one chief justice and 7 puisne judges (the number of judges kept on changing over the period of time). Thus the establishment of Supreme Court of Judicature in late 1700’s at Calcutta acted as a turning point in condition of litigants.
CONCLUSION
The conditions and the profession of the lawyers were not respected at the start but as the development took place and the importance of the profession was realized, the recognition to the lawyers was duly given. The attorneys possessed the powers to some extent, not like present-day but had some of the powers that enabled them to take charge wherever required. The requirements of the attorneys also increased with time as the cases increased and more matters were registered in the court. The Mayor’s Court had a different atmosphere for the litigants but, the learning started at that very stage which paved a way for the present-day situations. The changing dynamics of the conditions of litigants and legal profession over the period of time has made it to reach where it is now.
