Which of the following statements about the Hastings Plan of 1772 is/are correct? 1. Each district was to have a civil and a criminal Court. 2. The Judges were helped by native assessors who were skilled in Hindu and Islamic laws. l 3. The Sadar Diwani Adalat was mainly meant to settle mercantile cases exceeding f 10,000 in value. 4. These Courts did not put into place any procedural improvements. Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1. Transition from Trade to Rule: The Dual System (basic)

Welcome to your first step in understanding how a group of merchants transformed into the masters of an empire. To understand British administrative reforms, we must start with the Dual System of Government (1765–1772). After the decisive Battle of Buxar in 1764, the East India Company (EIC) didn't immediately take over the direct administration of Bengal. Instead, Robert Clive introduced a unique, hybrid arrangement where the authority was split between the Company and the local Nawab.

Under this system, the administration was divided into two distinct functions: Diwani and Nizamat. In 1765, the Mughal Emperor granted the Company the Diwani rights—the right to collect revenue and decide civil judicial cases M. Laxmikanth, Historical Background, p.1. Meanwhile, the Nizamat functions, which included the police and criminal justice, remained technically with the Nawab. However, the Company exercised control over the Nizamat as well by appointing a 'Deputy Subahdar' whom the Nawab could not dismiss. This effectively meant the British held the purse strings and the sword, while the Nawab remained the face of the government.

Feature	Diwani Rights	Nizamat Rights
Scope	Revenue collection and Civil justice.	Military power, Police, and Criminal justice.
Source	Granted by the Mughal Emperor (Shah Alam II).	Exercised via the Nawab of Bengal.
Actual Controller	East India Company.	East India Company (indirectly).

This period is often described as "Power without Responsibility." The Company had all the financial resources and military control but felt no obligation to the welfare of the people Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.93. Conversely, the Nawab had the responsibility of maintaining law and order but had no funds or power to do so. This lack of accountability led to massive corruption and administrative collapse, culminating in the horrific Bengal Famine of 1770. It eventually became clear that a commercial body could no longer govern through such a messy, indirect system, setting the stage for direct British parliamentary intervention.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Historical Background, p.1; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.93; Modern India, Bipin Chandra (Old NCERT 1982 ed.), The Structure of the Government, p.88

2. Centralization of Power: Regulating Act of 1773 (basic)

To understand the Regulating Act of 1773, we must first look at the state of the East India Company (EIC) at the time. By the early 1770s, the Company was in a strange position: it was nearly bankrupt, yet its officials were returning to England with massive private fortunes. This paradox forced the British Parliament to intervene, marking the first time the British government took a formal step to regulate and control the Company's affairs in India. As noted in Spectrum, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.502, this Act recognized that the Company’s role had shifted from mere trade to administrative and political functions.

The core theme of this Act was Centralization. Before 1773, the three Presidencies — Bengal, Bombay, and Madras — were independent of one another, each reporting directly to the Directors in England. This Act changed that by creating a hierarchy. It designated the Governor of Bengal as the Governor-General of Bengal and made the Governors of Bombay and Madras subordinate to him Laxmikanth, Historical Background, p.1. This laid the foundation for a unified central administration in India.

To prevent any single individual from becoming too powerful, the Act also created an Executive Council of four members to assist the Governor-General. Decisions were made by a majority vote, meaning the Governor-General (the first being Lord Warren Hastings) often had to struggle to get his council's support. This was a crucial transition from the earlier system where the head of the company's local administration was simply the "Governor of Fort William" Tamilnadu State Board (History), Effects of British Rule, p.265.

Feature	Pre-1773 System	Post-1773 (Regulating Act)
Bengal Head	Governor of Bengal	Governor-General of Bengal
Inter-Presidency Relation	Independent Presidencies	Bombay & Madras subordinate to Bengal
Decision Making	Governor alone	Governor-General + 4-member Executive Council

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.502; Indian Polity (Laxmikanth), Historical Background, p.1; History Class XI (Tamilnadu State Board), Effects of British Rule, p.265

3. Early Revenue Experiments: Quinquennial Settlement (intermediate)

When Warren Hastings took charge as the Governor of Bengal in 1772, the East India Company was in a financial mess. The previous "Dual Government" system, established by Robert Clive, had failed miserably, leaving the administration in chaos and the peasantry in distress Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.93. To fix this, Hastings ended the dual system and took direct responsibility for revenue collection. His first major experiment was the Quinquennial Settlement (1772), also known as the Five-Year Settlement.

The logic behind this system was simple but ruthless: the right to collect land revenue was auctioned off to the highest bidder for a period of five years Vivek Singh, Indian Economy, p.190. This is often referred to as the Farming System or Izaredari System. The Company hoped this would provide a stable, predictable income while shifting the burden of collection onto these "contractors."

However, the experiment was a practical disaster for several reasons:

• Over-bidding: Since the right went to the highest bidder, speculators and merchants—who had no experience in agriculture—bid astronomical sums just to secure the contract.
• Oppression of Peasants: To pay these high bids and still make a profit, the contractors (Izaredars) squeezed the farmers for every penny, leading to extreme rural distress.
• Revenue Instability: Because the bids were unrealistically high, many contractors failed to deposit the promised amounts into the treasury. This resulted in the actual collection varying wildly from year to year Vivek Singh, Indian Economy, p.190.

Ultimately, this system proved that treating land revenue like a commercial auction was unsustainable. It introduced deep instability in the Company’s finances and paved the way for more permanent solutions later on, such as Cornwallis's Permanent Settlement.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.93; Indian Economy (Vivek Singh), Land Reforms, p.190

4. The Pillars of Administration: Civil Services & Police (intermediate)

To understand how a small island nation governed a vast subcontinent like India, we must look at what historians often call the "Steel Frame" of the British Empire: the Civil Services and the Police. While Warren Hastings laid the initial groundwork, it was Lord Cornwallis (Governor-General, 1786–1793) who transformed these into professional, organized pillars of state power. His goal was simple but ambitious: to create a bureaucracy that was loyal, efficient, and, most importantly, free from the rampant corruption that had plagued the East India Company's early years.

The first major pillar was the Civil Service. Cornwallis realized that if officials were paid poorly, they would inevitably resort to corruption and private trade to enrich themselves. To fix this, he introduced a "carrot and stick" policy: he significantly raised salaries but strictly prohibited private trade and the acceptance of gifts History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Effects of British Rule, p.269. He also introduced a pivotal administrative change known as the Separation of Powers. Under the "Cornwallis Code" of 1793, the Collector—who had previously acted as both a tax gatherer and a judge—was deprived of judicial powers. This was done to ensure that the person collecting revenue didn't also have the power to adjudicate disputes regarding those very taxes Modern India, Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.), Administrative Organisation and Social and Cultural Policy, p.111.

The second pillar was the Police. Before Cornwallis, internal security was largely the responsibility of Zamindars (landlords), which often led to extortion and local tyranny. Cornwallis modernized this by establishing a regular police force. He divided districts into circles or thanas, each headed by a Daroga (an Indian officer) who was supervised by a European District Superintendent of Police. This shift effectively ended the Zamindars' traditional role in law enforcement and placed the monopoly of force directly in the hands of the Company state.

Feature	Pre-Cornwallis Era	Cornwallis Reforms (Post-1793)
Collector's Role	Combined revenue collection and judicial functions.	Strictly confined to revenue collection; judicial powers removed.
Law & Order	Maintained by Zamindars through local retainers.	Maintained by a professional police force (Darogas/Thanas).
Incentives	Low salaries, leading to corruption and private trade.	High salaries coupled with a ban on private trade.

Sources: History, class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Effects of British Rule, p.269; Modern India, Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.), Administrative Organisation and Social and Cultural Policy, p.111; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.513

5. Codification of Laws: Personal vs. Common Law (intermediate)

When the British first began to govern India, they faced a massive challenge: how do you adjudicate disputes in a land with thousands of years of existing legal traditions? To solve this, Warren Hastings introduced the Plan of 1772, which laid the foundation for a formal judicial hierarchy. This plan established two distinct courts in every district: the Mofussil Diwani Adalat for civil matters and the Mofussil Fauzdari Adalat for criminal cases. This was the first major step in moving from arbitrary local justice to a structured administrative system Modern India, Bipin Chandra, Chapter 6, p. 111. At this stage, the British did not attempt to impose a single "Common Law" for everyone. Instead, they relied on Personal Laws. In civil disputes, the law applied depended on the religion of the parties involved. Because European Collectors (who presided over the civil courts) were unfamiliar with Indian traditions, they were assisted by native pundits and kazis. These experts served as assessors, interpreting ancient Hindu Shastras and Islamic Sharia to ensure that judgments aligned with religious codes. This ensured a level of continuity and social stability during the early years of Company rule.

Feature	Personal Law (Early British)	Common Law (Later Goal)
Basis	Scriptures (Shastras/Sharia) and customs.	Uniform statutes and judicial precedents.
Application	Varies based on the individual's religion.	Universal; applies to everyone equally.
Experts	Native Pundits, Kazis, and Muftis.	Professional lawyers and judges trained in code.

While personal laws dominated civil matters, the British began introducing procedural uniformity to curb corruption. For instance, the Hastings Plan abolished the old system where judges took a percentage of the claim (judicial commissions). Instead, they introduced government court fees and required that all court proceedings be meticulously recorded. This shift toward record-keeping and fixed procedures was the "thin end of the wedge" that eventually led to the full codification of Indian laws in the 19th century Modern India, Bipin Chandra, Chapter 6, p. 111.

Sources: Modern India (Old NCERT), Administrative Organisation and Social and Cultural Policy, p.111

6. The Judicial Structure of 1772 (The Hastings Plan) (exam-level)

When Warren Hastings took over as Governor of Bengal, the judicial system was in a state of collapse. Under the Judicial Plan of 1772, Hastings sought to formalize British authority by establishing a structured hierarchy of courts at the district level. This move marked the transition of the East India Company from a mere commercial entity to a sovereign administrative power. The core of this plan was the creation of two distinct courts in every district: the Mofussil Diwani Adalat for civil matters and the Mofussil Fauzdari Adalat for criminal cases Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p. 521.

The Mofussil Diwani Adalat (Civil Court) was presided over by the European Collector. Since the British were not yet familiar with local customs, the Collector was assisted by native Pundits and Kazis who interpreted Hindu and Islamic personal laws respectively. For criminal justice, the Mofussil Fauzdari Adalat remained under the charge of Indian officers (Qazis and Muftis), though they operated under the general supervision of the English Collector. In these criminal courts, Muslim Law was applied to all, regardless of the defendant's religion Modern India, Bipin Chandra, Chapter 6, p. 111.

Feature	Mofussil Diwani Adalat	Mofussil Fauzdari Adalat
Nature	Civil Disputes (Property, Marriage, etc.)	Criminal Cases (Theft, Murder, etc.)
Presiding Officer	European Collector	Indian Officer (Qazis/Muftis)
Law Applied	Personal Law (Hindu/Muslim)	Islamic Law

To ensure accountability, Hastings introduced procedural reforms such as the mandatory maintenance of court records and the replacement of arbitrary judicial commissions with fixed government court fees. Above these district courts sat the appellate authorities in Calcutta: the Sadar Diwani Adalat (for civil appeals) and the Sadar Nizamat Adalat (for criminal appeals). Interestingly, while the Sadar Diwani Adalat was presided over by the Governor-General and his Council, the Sadar Nizamat Adalat was initially headed by a deputy appointee of the Nawab, maintaining a vestige of the old Mughal sovereignty Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p. 521.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.521; Modern India (Bipin Chandra, Old NCERT), Chapter 6: Administrative Organisation and Social and Cultural Policy, p.111

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the transition from the chaotic Dual Government to centralized Company rule, this question serves as a perfect test of your understanding of how Warren Hastings institutionalized British authority. The Hastings Plan of 1772 was the first major step toward creating a uniform judicial hierarchy. By connecting your conceptual building blocks, you can see that the plan was designed to bring justice under the direct control of the Company. Statement 1 is a direct hit: Hastings established the Mofussil Diwani Adalat (civil) and the Mofussil Fauzdari Adalat (criminal) in every district. Similarly, Statement 2 reflects the pragmatic reality of the era; because British Collectors were unfamiliar with local religious codes, they were assisted by native pundits and kazis who acted as legal experts to ensure decisions aligned with Hindu and Islamic laws.

To confidently select (A) 1 and 2, you must identify the subtle traps UPSC has laid in the other options. Statement 3 uses a common numerical distractor; while the Sadar Diwani Adalat was indeed the highest court of appeal, the valuation threshold for cases was 500 rupees, not 10,000. Statement 4 is a logic trap—it uses an absolute negative by claiming no procedural improvements were made. Historically, the 1772 Plan was revolutionary precisely because it modernized procedures, replacing the arbitrary judicial commissions of the past with fixed government court fees and mandatory record-keeping to ensure transparency. As detailed in Modern India by Bipin Chandra (Old NCERT), these changes laid the administrative groundwork for the modern Indian legal system.