mention any four features of the judicial services under the british
Answers
He established a Diwani Adalat and a Faujdari Adalat in every district.
The Diwani Adalat was presided over by the District Collector who belonged to the civil service.
The Faujdari Adalats were presided over by Indian officers who decided the cases with the assistance of Qazis and Muftis Four Provincial Courts of Appeal were set up at Calcutta, Murshidabad, Dacca and Patna which heard appeals against them or in important cases were heard by the Sadar Diwani Adalat.
Below the District Courts were the Registrar Courts, headed by Europeans and a number of subordinate courts headed by Indian judges known as Munsifs and Amin.
To deal with criminal cases Cornwallis divided the Presidency of Bengal into four divisions. In each of these divisions a Court of Circuit headed by the Civil Servants was established.
Below these courts there were a large number of Indian magistrates who tried petty cases.Appeals from the Court of Circuit lay with the Sadar Nizamat Adalat.
The criminal courts applied the Muslim criminal code or law in a modified form.The civil courts applied the customary laws that had traditionally prevailed in any area or among the section of the people. Hope these will help you in writing the answer.
In common law jurisdictions, courts interpret law; this includes constitutions, statutes, and regulations. They also make law (but in a limited sense, limited to the facts of particular cases) based upon prior case law in areas where the legislature has not made law. For instance, the tort of negligence is not derived from statute law in most common law jurisdictions. The term common law refers to this kind of law. Common law decisions set precedent for all courts to follow. This is sometimes called stare decisis.
In civil law jurisdictions, courts interpret the law, but are prohibited from creating law, and thus do not issue rulings more general than the actual case to be judged. In other words, they do not set precedent. Jurisprudence does not necessarily play a similar role to case law. Courts can decide if they follow jurisprudence in a given case or not.
Country-specific functions In the United States court system, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the interpretation of the federal Constitution and all statutes and regulations created pursuant to it, as well as the constitutionality of the various state laws; in the US federal court system, federal cases are tried in trial courts, known as the US district courts, followed by appellate courts and then the Supreme Court. State courts, which try 98% of litigation,[29] may have different names and organization; trial courts may be called "courts of common plea", appellate courts "superior courts" or "commonwealth courts".[30] The judicial system, whether state or federal, begins with a court of first instance, is appealed to an appellate court, and then ends at the court of last resort.[31]
In France, the final authority on the interpretation of the law is the Council of State for administrative cases, and the Court of Cassation for civil and criminal cases.
In the People's Republic of China, the final authority on the interpretation of the law is the National People's Congress.
Other countries such as Argentina have mixed systems that include lower courts, appeals courts, a cassation court (for criminal law) and a Supreme Court. In this system the Supreme Court is always the final authority, but criminal cases have four stages, one more than civil law does. On the court sits a total of nine justices. This number has been changed several times.
I hope it's helpful for you...