RAJA NANDAKUMAR CASE

INTRODUCTION:

The case of Raja Nandakumar stands in a class by itself as it was the first decisive event
during early stage. It draws out the contention between Warren Hastings and the majority in
the council and between the court and the majority. Nandakumar was disciple of the majority
in the council and his trial under the steady gaze of the Supreme Court hence progressed
toward becoming in a way a trial of solidarity between the court and the majority. This case
delineates the anomalous character of the first impact of the English law on the Indians and
portrays what sort of troubles emerge when a remote arrangement of law is transplanted
abruptly in a general public having no information about the framework and is implemented
with all its rigours. The Supreme Court of Calcutta at Fort William built up by the Charter
Act of 1773 by King George III in year 1774, with the fundamental goal of ensuring the
Indians against the oppressive exercises of the servants of the organization (East India
Company), was however, in any case, an unmixed gift to those Indians who came within its
purview. The court’s constitution, jurisdiction, powers, law and dialect were all remote and
obscure to the Indians and were totally out of concordance (harmony) with their traditions
and customs. All these aspects of the issue are significantly brought out with the Nandakumar
Case.1 With the request of judges on the autonomy of judiciary, interference of the Council,
started new era in the organization (East India Company) equity in India. The trial gained
chronicled significance in the history as it framed a fundamental piece of the charge on which
Warren Hastings and Elijah Impey were impeached by the House of Commons after their
return to England. This Nandakumar Case additionally passes on what is implied by the
Judicial Murder.2 It was a clear-cut leading case concerning conflict of Supreme Council i.e.
Government and Supreme Court.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1
See, Stephen,op.cit. Vol.II,176.
2
Devesh Bhatia, JUDICIAL MURDER CASE- RAJA NAND KR, Scribd (Dec.21, 2018 10:45PM)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/19702765/Judicial-Murder-Case-Raja-Nand-Kr.
A. Research Design:
The exploration strategy so used to compose this research paper is doctrinal. It is
doctrinal as in it originates from the sound sources in this, books, articles distributed
in famous and defended website pages and diaries. The undertaking likewise utilizes
deductive thinking for research. The wellspring of data additionally comprises of
information the researcher has as a law student. The research is coordinated towards
the first judicial murder and how it was drilled in INDIA amid the British period in
year 1775 which is likewise known by the name of Trial of Raja Nandakumar. The
information so utilized is subjective, as built up hypothesis and analysis. The
information is excerpted from Journals, Articles and e-law sites. The sources so
utilized are discretionary in nature and can be treated as library-based research. The
entire research paper is done in a sorted-out way. To start with, the fundamental
sections have been chosen and then, just conceivable endeavors have been made to
gather data required for the research paper.
B. Aims & Objectives:
The main objective of the research project is to understand what is meant by the
judicial murder and discuss in detail about first judicial murder in India i.e. case of
Raja Nandakumar.
● To understand the matter of Raja Nandakumar trial
● To understand why this case is known as judicial murder
● Laws which were violated during the proceedings
● Understand Act of Settlement 1781
C. Research Questions:
● Discuss facts which led to the trial of Raja Nandakumar
● How is the death of Raja Nandakumar known as 1st judicial murder?
● What is meant by the “Judicial Murder”? How Warren Hastings used justice as a tool
to take revenge from Nandakumar?

D. Review of Literature:
● Landmarks In Indian Legal & Constitutional History, By V.D.Kulshreshtha: This
source helped in getting the brief facts about the charter acts and also the case of Raja
Nandakumar with the critical appraisal by many historians.

1
 ● Story of Nuncomar & Impeachment of Impey, By J.F.Stephens: This source
contained detailed facts of the case in the form of two volumes of which one
containing trial of Nandakumar and another containing impeachment of then Chief
Justice of Supreme Court Elijah Impey. This book contains imperialist thoughts of not
only Stephens but many other historians in favour of Hastings. This book contains
detailed facts of the trial of Nandakumar and also the arguments spoken by different
parties in the suit.
● Conflict- Raja Nandakumar Case, By Pratyush Mishra: This source helped to know
about the case of Nandakumar in brief.
● Book by M.P. Jain on Indian Legal History, pp.48-53, 1 st ed. 2006 – in this book the
detailed facts of Nandakumar case are given and, in this book, it is discussed that facts
and critical appraisal of the case.
D. Limitations:
The limitation of the study is those characteristics of design or methodology that
impacted or influenced the application or interpretation of the results of the
researcher’s study. The research is limited to educational purposes only. Only that
information could be furnished which was available and the availability of which
could be authenticated. The researcher was unable to do an empirical research due to
non-availability of proper resources, time, and restriction of the domain of research.

EVENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL OF RAJA

NANDAKUMAR:

Raja Nandakumar3 was born in Brahmin family of Bengal in year 1705. His birth name was
Nancumor. He was born is Birhadpur which is now in Birhum. The title “Maharaja” was
conferred on Nandakumar by Shah Alam II in 1764. He was a big Zamindar and a very
influential person of Bengal. He was loyal to the English company ever since the days of
Clive and was popularly known as “Black Colonel” by the company. He was appointed
Collector of Burdwan, Nadia, and Hugli by the East India Company in 1764, in place of
Warren Hastings. Maharaja Nandakumar was a reasonably respectable person in the Bengal
at that time.

3
Adam Augustyn, NAND KUMAR – BENGALI OFFICIAL, Britannica Encyclopedia, (Dec.24,2018
09:45AM)
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nand-Kumar.

2
At the point when Nandakumar was appointed the authority of Burdwan in year 1764 instead
of Hastings, it brought about a verifiable standing animosity between both. Consequently was
started the instance of Nandakumar. According to Act of 1773, 4 Governor of Bengal was
appointed as the Governor General of Bengal and had powers over all the presidencies of
Madras, Bombay and Bengal. First such Governor General of Bengal was Warren Hastings.
In view of this Act, a general council consisting of one Governor General and 4 Councilors
was appointed for the presidency of Calcutta having some special powers.

Three out of four individuals from the committee were adversaries (against or opposite) of
Hastings, the then Governor-General of Bengal and in this way the council comprised of two
opponent groups, the majority aggregate being against Hastings. The majority-in-council
consisting of Sir Philip Francis, John Clavering and George Monson instigated Nandakumar
to bring certain charges of bribe and corruption against Warren Hastings before the council.
In year 1775, Raja Nandakumar brought few charges of bribery and debasement against the
then Governor General of Bengal, Warren Hastings in Governor-General’s Council of
Calcutta. The charges were composed. Raja Nandakumar gave a letter of objection or
complaint against Warren Hastings to Sir Philip Francis, an individual from the chamber
dated 11th March 1775. This letter was introduced before the Council by Sir Philip Francis,
that day, at its council. The letter of dissension expressed that in 1772, Warren Hastings when
he was Governor, acknowledged from him as a reward of Rs 1,04,105 for naming Gurudas as
Diwan of Hugli and from Munni Begam (Begum from Awadh) Rs 2,50,000 for appointing
her as the guardian of the infant Nawab Mubarak-Ud-Daulah. So, two cases can be
summarized as:

a. Case of Queen of Burdwan: In 1774, the Queen Of Burdwan alleged that Hastings
had taken illegal bribe of One Lakhs Rupees from her to make her minor son,
Gurudas the Diwan after the death of her husband.
b. Case Of Munni Begum: Munni begum was appointed guardian of the Nawab. In 1775
it was found by the council of Murshidabad that she had spent Rs. 9,63,000 which
was quite a large sum. Begum was asked to submit the accounts. In her statement of
accounts, she had mentioned that she has presented two lakh fifty thousand rupees to
Governor General Warren Hastings as gift for appointing her as the guardian of the
infant nawab.

4
See, Regulating Act,1773

3
 The Council got another letter from Nandakumar dated 13th March 1775 through which he
offered to deliver vouchers supporting his charges of pay off debt against Warren Hastings.
5
Francis bring this letter before the chamber in the council and different supporters, moved a
rainstorm movement that Nandakumar ought to be brought to show up before the Council.
Warren Hastings who was presiding the meeting of council within the authority of Governor
General, contradicted Monson’s movement on the ground that he will not sit in the meeting
of council to hear allegations against himself nor will he recognize the individuals from his
council to be judges in his cause. 6 Sir Barwell, the alone supporter individual from Hastings,
set forth a recommendation that Nandakumar should record his objection in the eminent court
since it was the court and not the chamber, which was skilled to hear the case. Be that as it
may, Monson’s movement was upheld by the majority henceforth Hastings broke down the
ongoing meeting. Immediately dominant part of the individuals protested this activity of
Hastings and chose Clavering to direct the gathering instead of Hastings. Subsequently,
Nandakumar was called before the council to demonstrate his charges against Hastings. Raja
Nandakumar, in the wake of showing up before the Council, represented a letter in Persian
language, which was posted by Munni Begum to him. The Council, while looking at Raja
Nandakumar, asked him that, “Was he at any point drawn nearer by Warren Hasting or his
men for the letter of Munni Begum?” because of this inquiry, Raja Nandakumar said that
Warren Hasting’s Baniya named Kanta Babu had come to him, about four months back to
gather this letter, yet the first letter was not given to him. The Council additionally called
Kanta Babu, yet he abstained from showing up at the case of Warren Hastings. The chamber
pronounced that the charges leveled against Hastings were demonstrated and asked Hastings
to deposit a handsome amount of Rs3,54,105 in treasury of the company, which he
acknowledged from Nandakumar and Munni Begum.

Lord Macaulay guaranteed that “Nandakumar, as it were, was triumphant. He in any case,
played a risky game.”7 Macaulay guaranteed this in light of the fact that Nandakumar headed
to give up a man of assets and assurance with all his comprehension and intensity, yet was
unconscious of the idea of the organizations under which he was working.

5
V D Kulshreshtha, LANDMARKS IN INDIAN LEGAL & CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, 119 (11th
ed.2016)
6
Pratyush Mishra, CONFLICT- RAJA NAND KUMAR CASE, Kupdf (Dec.25 2018, 09:35PM)
https://kupdf.net/download/conflict-raja-nandkumar-kamaludin-patna-case-and-
cossijurahdoc_5a40bf3ee2b6f56f1dbe7fbc_pdf.
7
Sir J F Stephens, THE STORY OF NUNCOMAR & IMPEACHMENT OF SIR ELIJAH IMPEY, 75 (1 st ed.
1885)

4
Raja Nandakumar had no clue about the partition among political and judicial functions of
the East India Company. It never came to his mind that there was an independent authority in
Bengal other than the Council an authority which could ensure one whom the Council needed
to pulverize and execute one whom it wished to secure. In its own sphere, the Supreme Court
was quite independent of the Government. The Judges, particularly Chief Justice, of the
Supreme Court, were antagonistic to most of the Council. With his standard insightfulness,
Hastings could see this and acted to abuse this specialist (Chief Justice Elijah Impey) for his
own benefit. Hastings truly trusted that the General Council had no specialist to ask into
Nandakumar charges against him. This occasion made Hastings a harsh foe of Nandakumar
and he searched for a chance to show him i.e. Nandakumar down.8

FACTS OF TRIAL OF RAJA NANDAKUMAR:

The Regulating Act of 1773 was silent about the law which the Supreme Court was to
administer and contain no effective provisions to restrict the Jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court over Indians. The Judges appointed to the court were well versed with English
Traditions and were also learned in English Laws but they were altogether unfamiliar with
codes of Indian Laws, the customs and traditions of the Indian people. Nor did they care to
acquaint themselves with them.

Soon after this incident, Raja Nandakumar along with Fawkes and Radha Charan were
charged and arrested for conspiracy at the instance of Hastings and Barwell. Nandakumar
was thrown in the common prison. In order to bring further disgrace to Raja Nandakumar,
Hastings manipulated case of forgery against him at the instance of one Mohan Prasad in the
conspiracy case. The Supreme Court in its decision of July 1775, fined Fawkes 9 but reserved
its judgment against Nandakumar on the grounds of pending forgery case. The charge against
Nandakumar in the forgery case was that he had forged a bond in year 1770. The then
Governor General Warren Hastings felt that it would be difficult to involve Nandakumar
directly into the conspiracy case and therefore he implicated Nandakumar in another case of
forgery, for which the punishment was death as per the provisions of the English Act of
1729.10

8
M S Rama Rao, INDIAN LEGAL HISTORY, MSR Lawbooks (3 rd March 2019,11:26PM),
www.msrlawbooks.com/file/indian_legalhistory.
9
Joseph Fawkes and Francis Fawkes
10
https://thearticle.in/hindustan/judicial-murder-rajanad-bengal/. retv dated 25/12/2018 at 11:49PM

5
The charge of forgery against Nandakumar was with respect to a bond or deed claimed as an
acknowledgment of debt from Bulaki Das, the banker, which it is said, was executed by him
in 1765. Mohan Prasad brought a charge of forgery on 6th May 1775 before the justices of
the peace for the town of Calcutta. Le Maistre and Hyde acted as Magistrate 11; they heard the
case and scrutinized the evidence for the prosecution till late in the night. The Magistrates, in
the capacity of the justices of the peace, being satisfied with the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, ordered the Sherriff and keeper of his Majesty’s prison at Calcutta to keep
Nandakumar in safe custody until he would be released as per law. Mohan Prasad gave a
bond to prosecute Nandakumar in the Supreme Court dated 7th May 1775, and on the basis
of this, his trial commenced before the Chief Justice and three other puisne judges of the
Supreme Court on 8th May 1775.

The trial of Nandakumar began on 8th June and continued for eight days without any delay.
The advocate of Nandakumar, first of all, advanced a plea as to the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in the matter, which was rejected by the Court. The Court sat every day from
8 a.m. and witnesses were scrutinized till late at night. One of the most peculiar features of
this trial was that the judges cross-examined the defence witnesses in minute detail. The trial
lasted till the midnight of 15th June 1775. The Chief Justice Impey summed up the whole
case on the morning of 16th June. The judges gave the unanimous verdict of “guilty” and the
jury also declared their verdict of “guilty”. Consequently, he was subjected to death sentence
under an act of British Parliament called Forgery Act, 1729.12

Serious efforts were made to save the life of Nandakumar and an application for granting
leave to appeal in king-in-council was moved in the Supreme Court but the same was
rejected. Another petition for recommending the case for mercy to the British council was
also turned down by the Supreme Court. The sentence passed by the Supreme Court was duly
executed by hanging Raja Nandakumar to death on August 5, 1775 at 8:00 a.m. at Coolly
Bazar near Fort William, Calcutta.

ISSUES RAISED AFTER THE TRIAL

● Whether Supreme Court had jurisdiction over this case or not?

● Whether Nandakumar be punished under English Act of Forgery, 1729?
11
Sir J F Stephens, THE STORY OF NUNCOMAR & IMPEACHMENT OF SIR ELIJAH IMPEY, 125-126
(1st ed.1885)
12
Henry Beveridge, TRIAL OF MAHARAJA NANDAKUMAR: A JUDICIAL NARRATIVE, 297 (1 st
ed.1886)

6
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

The prime objection regarding the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction was that before the
establishment of Supreme Court in Calcutta, the Indians in Bengal were tried by local
Faujdari Adalats. In this case, the offence was committed before the establishment of the
Supreme Court, and therefore it had no jurisdiction to decide the case. Some had confusion
regarding of applicability of English Act of 1729 in INDIA which was not formally
introduced and common people had no knowledge about the same.13 The Statute which made
forgery a capital offence and under which Nandakumar was punished was passed in England
in 1729, suitable in conditions of that country only, without any reference to the state of
society in India. The law unknown to the natives and was never formally promulgated in
Calcutta. There was a divided opinion even amongst the judges, but ultimately the majority
views including that of the Chief Justice Impey prevailed and Supreme Court held that the
Statute was applicable even in the circumstances of Calcutta.

There are some instances which the researcher thinks are unfamiliar with normal court
proceedings which suggests that this trial was not fair in nature are like:

First is that Supreme Court doesn’t had jurisdiction over Nandakumar because he was not a
resident of Calcutta and also in proceedings was started at the instance of another native,
Mohan Prasad. According to Charter Act of 1774, it was the choice of the Indian parties if
both of them agrees to file the case in the court of law. But in this case of Nandakumar,
proceedings started only with the consent of one party i.e. Mohan Prasad, case was filed in
the Supreme Court. But according to the Charter Act, 14 both parties with their consent should
handover their judicatory powers to the court but here as only one party handed over the
jurisdiction. So, Supreme Court was not entitled to take over the case of Raja Nandakumar.15

Second unusual thing is that the witnesses in favor of Raja Nandakumar were cross examined
not once, but several times by all the sitting Judges. Indian witnesses were not accustomed to
English law and procedure and the ways of the English Courts. They were given different
treatment other than what should be given to them. The consequences were that they got
confused under a severe and repeated cross examination by the English Judges and the whole
defense of the accused (Raja Nandakumar) collapsed.
13
Keith Arthur, CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF INDIA, pp.213-217, 17th Ed.2011
14
See, British Charter Act, 1774.
15
V D Kulshreshtha, LANDMARKS IN INDIAN LEGAL & CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, 123-124 (11th
ed.2016)

7
Other typical thing about this trial is that the offence of forgery for which Nandakumar was
accused and for which he was ultimately convicted, was alleged to have been committed in
1770 i.e. much before the establishment of the Supreme Court under the Charter of 1774.
And the act under which he was tried was not formally introduced in presidency of Bengal so
people couldn’t be expected to know about it. Thus, he was tried by an ex post fact law as
the prosecution was based on the Charter of 1774. 16

Another unusual thing was two of the Judges of the Supreme Court were committing
Magistrates also and this fact must have affected the Justice, because it clearly amounted to
violation of Natural Justice. Beveridge points out that Judges, Hyde and Le Maistre, were
disposed to be subservient to Chief Justice Impey as he had helped in procuring their
appointment to the Jury which consisted of obscure men.17

Also, the Act of 1729 under which Nandakumar was convicted had never been formally
promulgated in Calcutta and the people could not be expected to know anything about it.
The Act was passed by British Parliament keeping in view the conditions of that country. It
was not intended to extend the British India Act of 1728 to India upon which was based the
condemnation of Nandakumar.

Some of the other typical things include that after convicting Nandakumar, an application for
leave to appeal to the King-in-council was also rejected by the Supreme Court. Further the
Charter of 1774 had authorized the court to reprieve and Suspend execution of a Capital
Sentence and recommend the case for mercy to his Majesty. But this provision was not given
effect to by the Supreme Court although such a case deserved mercy. Denial of permission to
appeal before the King-in Council to Nandakumar was in nutshell, a blatant disregard of
justice, Supreme Court ought to have exercised this jurisdiction in order to prove its
impartiality in the eyes of law. Court refused to grant respite.

And lastly, the British Act of 1729, under which Nandakumar was held guilty for the offence
of Forgery was not regarded as a capital offence under Hindu or any Mohammedan laws.
Instead, forgery was not a criminal offence under either of Hindu or Mohammedi Laws.

All these observations of the case go on showing us that there were mala-fides on the part of
judges of the Supreme Court and the fate which Nandakumar met was due to a pre-

16
Devesh Bhatia, JUDICIAL MURDER CASE- RAJA NAND KR, SCRIBD (Dec.21, 2018 10:45PM)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/19702765/Judicial-Murder-Case-Raja-Nand-Kr.
17
Beveridge, ‘THE TRIAL OF NANDAKUMAR’, p.218

8
determined plan. To sentence an Indian to death under these circumstances by applying
literally an obscure English law was nothing but sheer miscarriage of justice.

CRITICISM OF THE DECISION:

According to James Stephen in his book “The trial of Raja Nandakumar and impeachment of
Impey”, Chief Justice Elijah Impey in this case acted unjustly in refusing the respite to
Nandakumar. No rational man can doubt that he took this course in order to gratify the
Governor General. The trial of Nandakumar disclosed that the institution of Supreme Court
hardly commanded any respect from the natives as it wholly unsuited to their social
conditions and customs. The trial has been characterized as “Judicial Murder” of Raja
Nandakumar which rudely shocked the conscience of mankind. 18 Raja Nandakumar’s trial
was certainly a case of miscarriage of justice. Now the question that rises before the
researcher is that what is meant by the term Judicial Murder.

According to Merriam Webster dictionary, judicial murder is defined as ‘death caused by a

court sentence held to be legal but unjust’.19

According to Oxford English dictionary, judicial murder is defined as ‘death inflicted by

process of law, capital punishment especially considered to be unjust or cruel’.

According to Collins dictionary, judicial murder is defined as ‘unjustified execution of death

penalty.’20

So it can be said that Judicial Murder is unjustified use of legal punishment for punishing an
innocent person. It means judicial murder is giving death penalty to a person without any
sufficient cause by the judge or a competent authority which leads to the belief that it is
mistake on the part of judiciary. Lord Macaulay and JS Mill 21 criticized the decision of
Supreme Court due to huge controversy and also due to the peculiar features mentioned
above in this study.

CONCLUSION:
18
Pratyush Mishra, CONFLICT- RAJA NAND KUMAR CASE, KUPDF (Dec.25 2018, 09:45PM)
https://kupdf.net/download/conflict-raja-nandkumar-kamaludin-patna-case-and-
cossijurahdoc_5a40bf3ee2b6f56f1dbe7fbc_pdf.
19
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judicial%20murder retv dated 26/12/2018 at 12:49PM
20
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/judicial-murder retv dated 26/12/2018 at 12:50PM
21
James Mill, History of British India, Vol. IV, 332.

9
This case of Raja Nandakumar trial abruptly exposed the judiciary system of the earlier
times. Through this case it can be clearly said that the Warren Hastings with the help of his
school friend Impey used judiciary as tool for taking revenge. And historians like Macaulay
said that when Nandakumar was convicted, Impey refused to give respite to Nandakumar for
his case to be presented before the sovereign i.e. King-in-council so it can be clearly
presumed that by refusing to give respite to the Nandakumar, Impey acted unfair and it can
also be called as Judicial Murder. But some historians like James Fitzman Stephens support
the unjust act of judges by citing that they acted in good faith. And many historians claim that
when it was proved that Hastings took bribe not only from Gurudas and Munni Begum but
also from many others then, why was he not punished and why he was just asked to pay the
sum of bribe in the company’s treasury. It shows the careless attitude of the Britishers
towards the common people of the country in which they resided. It can also be regarded as a
flaw in Charter Act of 1773. And also, Supreme Court by giving punishment of death
penalty to Raja Nandakumar under British Parliament act of 1729 which was not introduced
in India and people were not even aware about it made forgery a capital offence. So it was
clear that Supreme Court just wanted to give punishment anyhow to Nandakumar to hide
their crimes which they commit as a different identity person far away from the justice like
bribery. And also for the crimes, Indians were directly punished by the Faujdari Adalats but
in this case court directly was heard in Supreme Court in which according to Charter act of
1773 was clearly stated that supreme court will not interfere in either civil or criminal matters
of Indians unless both the parties to the suit give their acceptance, but in this Mohan Prasad
filed case directly in the supreme court but acceptance of Nandakumar didn’t matter for the
court. Why. It was clear that court hanged Nandakumar in order that peculators in general
and his friend Hastings might be safe.

This misconduct of Impey and Hastings led to their impeachment before House of Commons
which found the charges against both Impey and Hastings to be true and finally they were
impeached in year 1795. Hastings was accused of many misconducts in Calcutta hence he
was impeached in 1787 and after 9 years he killed himself in living room. This case was a
like a stain on the clothes of British judicial system and will be remembered forever.

REFERENCES:

Books

10
1. J.F.Stephens, STORY OF NUNCOMAR & IMPEACHMENT OF IMPEY, 1st Ed.
2. V.D.Kulshreshtha, LANDMARKS IN INDIAN LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
HISTORY, 11th Ed., Eastern Book Company
3. Henry Beveridge, TRIAL OF MAHARAJA NANDAKUMAR: A JUDICIAL
NARRATIVE, 1st Ed.

11