History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c12.134

c12.134

Though merciless in punishing wrong-doers, the Sultan enjoyed a reputation for his love of justice. Unbiassed contemporary writers are unanimous in praising his love of justice and impartiality. The author of the Masālik says that the Sultan held a special darbār for administering justice and his remarks are amply corroborated by Ibn Batūṭah. Justice was as usual administered by the Qazi who was aided by the Muftis who expounded the law. The head of the judicial department was the Sadr-i-Jahan Qazi-al-Quzāt (Lord Chief Justice) and below him were Qazis and nāib Qazis who administered justice at the capital as well as in the provinces. The Sultan's brother Mubarak Khan sat with the Qazi in the Diwan-i-Khānah to assist him in deciding cases. He occupied the office of Mirdād whose duty was to produce in the court any big amir or nobleman against whom a complaint was instituted or a suit was filed and who was too powerful to be controlled by the Qazi. The salary of this officer was fixed at fifty thousand a year, and he was granted a jagir which yielded an equivalent income and a robe of honour embroidered with gold.⁴¹ The Qazi was treated with great regard.⁴² The arm of the law was strong enough to reach the most powerful dignitary of the empire, and it was with a view to secure the fearless and independent discharge of duty that the Sultan created the office of Mirdād. He cared nothing for the Shaikhs and the 'Ulama; he rejected the doctrine of the inviolability of the sacerdotal order and severely punished its members, if they were found guilty of any wrong—a policy which caused much dissatisfaction in reactionary circles. Justice had so far been a monopoly of the clericalists, but Muhammad Tughluq deprived them of this monopoly and constituted himself into the Supreme Court of Appeal. Ibn Batūṭah and Shihāb-al-Din both testify to the Sultan's desire to administer equal justice to all classes of his subjects, and the former gives a detailed account of the manner in which the Sultan suppressed privilege. The author of the Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, whom Badāoni copies, writes that there were four *muftis* stationed in the royal palace. When a case was brought up for trial, the Sultan discussed it with the *muftis* and so strict was he that he gave them a warning that they should be held responsible, if an innocent man's life was destroyed. The *muftis* never hesitated to express the correct view, and if they were defeated in argument, the accused was executed immediately, even if it were the middle of the night. But if the king failed to answer the arguments of the *muftis*, he sent them away and tried to think out an answer to rebut their arguments. If they were unable to convince the Sultan, he forthwith pronounced the sentence, but if he was defeated in argument, the release of the culprit was ordered forthwith.⁴³ This statement regarding the Sultan's love of justice by one who describes him as bloody (Khūnī) points to the fact that he loved justice and it is corroborated by contemporary chroniclers.