Previous Year Question

By a regulation in 1793, the District Collector was deprived of his judicial powers and made the collecting agent only. What was the reason for such regulation?

Lord Cornwallis felt that the District Collector's efficiency of revenue collection would enormously increase without the burden of other work

Lord Cornwallis felt that Judicial power should compulsorily be in the hands of Europeans while Indians can be given the job of revenue collection in the districts

Lord Cornwallis was alarmed at the extent of power concentrated in the District Collector and felt that such absolute power was undesirable in one person

The judicial work demanded a deep knowledge of India and a good training in law and Lord Cornwallis felt that District Collector should be only a revenue collector

Correct Answer: C

Detailed Solution

Option (c) is correct. Under the arrangement of 1787, the District Collector had come to exercise judicial and magisterial powers in addition to revenue collection. The same officer collected revenue and also played a role in deciding disputes arising from revenue matters. Administrative/revenue and judicial powers were therefore concentrated in the same individual.

Cornwallis subsequently considered this concentration of power undesirable. The fundamental principle of the 1793 arrangement was that a revenue officer should not himself act as judge in disputes in which the Government had a revenue interest. Cornwallis argued that disputed public financial claims should go before judges who had no personal interest in the result and could decide impartially between the Government, landholders and tenants. Revenue and judicial functions were separated on this broader principle.

Under Regulation II of 1793, judicial authority was withdrawn from the Collectors. The Mal Adalats or Revenue Courts attached to their offices were abolished, and their cases were transferred to the jurisdiction of District Judges. The Collector's principal function thereafter became revenue administration, while separate District Judges exercised judicial authority.

Thus, the increase in efficiency of revenue collection mentioned in option (a) was not the fundamental principle behind the change. Option (b) is also incorrect—Cornwallis did favour Europeans for higher judicial posts, but the Collector's judicial powers were not removed in order to hand revenue collection to Indians. Option (d) is likewise incorrect because the problem was not the Collector's lack of knowledge of India or law, but the concentration of incompatible powers in the same officer.

An important historical nuance is that this did not create a complete separation of the executive and judiciary in the modern constitutional sense. Revenue and civil judicial functions were separated in 1793, but the District Judge also possessed magisterial and police-related powers. It was therefore an important institutional separation, but not a complete modern separation of powers.

Continue practicing free PYQs with your JAGTIV account.