Constitutional Development of India (Part-I)

There were many consecutive Acts which were passed by British East India Company, as follows: Charter Act 1833. All commercial advantages and rights were completely abolished by the Charter Act 1833. Now, Company had only administrative rights on behalf of the British Crown.

The area of present-day Uttar Pradesh was acquired gradually by East India Company from the last quarter of the 18th century to the mid-19th century. This entire area was first placed with Bengal presidency, but in 1834, it was separated to form North-Western Provinces under Agra Presidency.

British Parliament tabled the Government of India Act, 1858, which transferred powers from the East India Company to the Crown. A member of the British Parliament was made Secretary of State for India to exercise powers on behalf of the Crown and was responsible to the British Parliament, assisted by the Advisory Council of India. The Council of India had 15 members, 8 appointed by the Crown and 7 elected by the Court of Directors. Secretary of State for India was to exercise the powers which were being enjoyed by the Court of Directors and Board of Control.

The Charter Act of 1813 ended the monopoly of the East India Company in India. However, the company's monopoly in trade with China and trade in tea remained intact. Thus statement 1 is not correct. British Parliament brought the Government of India Act, 1858, which transferred powers from the East India Company to the Crown and took the responsibility of ruling India directly. Thus statement 2 is correct.

Indian Council Act, 1861 empowered Governor-General to issue Ordinance in Emergency Period. These Ordinances were applicable for a maximum of 6 months.

The Indian Council Act, 1861, strengthened the Viceroy’s authority. Canning reorganized his executive Council, instituting departmental distribution of responsibilities. He substituted "portfolio" or department system by which every department of administration was headed by an individual.

Cornwallis judicial reforms took the final shape in 1793 and were embodied in the famous Cornwallis Code. The new reforms were based on the principle of Separation of Powers. Under the influence of the eighteenth-century French philosophers, Cornwallis sought to separate the revenue administration from the administration of justice. The Collector was the head of the revenue department in a district and also enjoyed extensive judicial and magisterial powers. Cornwallis believed that concentration of all powers in the hands of the Collector in the District retards the improvement as a judge of the Diwani Adalat redress the wrongs done by him as collector or assessor of revenue? Thus, neither the landlords nor the cultivators could regard the Collector as impartial Judge in revenue cases: The Cornwallis Code divested the Collector of all judicial and magisterial powers and left him with the duty of administration of revenue. A new class of officer called the District Judge was created to preside over the District Civil Court. The District Judge was empowered with magisterial and police functions.

The monopoly of East India Company in India’s trade was abolished by the Charter Act of 1813. But they held the monopoly on the trade of Tea and trade with China.

The monopoly of East India Company in India’s trade was abolished by the Charter Act of 1813. But they held the monopoly on the trade of Tea and trade with China.

The monopoly of East India Company in India’s trade was abolished by the Charter Act of 1813. But they held the monopoly on the trade of Tea and trade with China.