Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c13.s3: Section 3. Justice under Vijayanagara

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c13.s3

Language
English

Section 3. Justice under Vijayanagara

v1.c13.s3.1

The accounts of travellers as well as inscriptions give us some details about the manner in which they administered justice in the Hindu Empire. 'Abdur Razzāq says: "On the right hand of the palace of the Sultān there is the diwān-khāna or minister's office, which is extremely large, and presents the appearance of a chihal sutūn, or forty-pillared hall. . . . In the middle of the pillared hall, a eunuch, called a Danāik, sits alone upon a raised platform, and presides over the administration; and below it the mace-bearers stand drawn up in a row on each side. Whoever has any business to transact advances between the lines of mace-bearers, offers some trifling present, places his face upon the ground, and standing upon his legs again, represents his grievance. Upon this, the Danāik issues orders founded upon the rules of justice prevalent in that country, and no other person has any power of remonstrance. When the Danāik leaves the chamber, several coloured umbrellas are borne before him,² and trumpets are sounded, and on both sides of his way panegyrists pronounce benedictions upon him. Before he reaches the king he has to pass through seven gates, at which porters are seated, and as the Danāik arrives at each door, an umbrella is left behind, so that on reaching the seventh gate the Danāik enters alone. He reports upon the affairs of the State to the king, and, after remaining sometime, returns. His residence lies behind the palace of the king".³

v1.c13.s3.2

² Infra. Volume II., Chapter V, Section 2.

v1.c13.s3.3

³ Elliot, Hist. of India, IV, pp. 107-8; Major, India, p. 25. See also Sewell, For. Emp., p. 91.

v1.c13.s3.4

From the above it appears that there were regular courts of justice and judges specially appointed for that purpose under the mediaeval form of government.¹ The *Danāik* of 'Abdur Razzāq was evidently a *daṇḍanāyaka* or military commander; and if we are to rely on the evidence of the Persian Ambassador, the Vijayanagara monarchs entrusted the duty of administering justice to an officer of the army, or to one who had seen service as a general. If this were really the case, no graver error could have been committed by the Hindu rulers of Vijayanagara, since such a procedure would have meant the violation of one of the most important injunctions of the ancient lawgivers in regard to the administration of justice. We have seen that according to Manu, Gautama, Vasiṣṭha, and Baudhāyana, the king was to be assisted by at least three Brahmans well versed in the Sacred Law. A *daṇḍanāyaka* or military commander was in no sense a substitute for a Brahman learned in the *smṛtis*, although, as remarked elsewhere, we have instances of very wise and able minister-governors well acquainted with the *śāstras* and *smṛtis* in Vijayanagara history. The fact that 'Abdur Razzāq is positive about the name of the high dignitary who administered justice makes one suspect that the rulers of Vijayanagara had indeed acted, at least in the important question of the composition of what may be called the court of chief justice, contrary to the classical notions of *daṇḍa*. This supposition is strengthened to some extent by the fact that in the list of the eight ministers (*aṣṭha-pradhāna*), as given in the *Accounts of Rāma-Rāja*, no mention is made of a supreme judge or chief justice.²

v1.c13.s3.5

¹ For some remarks on this subject see Rice, My. Gaz. I, p. 480 (1st ed.); I, p. 587, seq., (Rev. ed.) A.C.P. dated S. 1578 of the times of Sriranga Rāya (No. 19 of 1916-17) deals with the settlement of a case of *gauḍike* rights by the village court (*dharmāsana*) of Harati. This is ten years after the flight of Raṅga Rāya to Bedhore. If the authenticity of this inscription could be proved, we have some evidence of the existence of village courts in A.D. 1656-7. On the last days of Sriranga Rāya, who is by some styled II, and by others, III, of that name, see S. K. Aiyangar, in Satyanatha, Nayaks, p. 133, n. (60).

v1.c13.s3.6

² *Rāma-Rāja Charita*, Mac. Coll. MSS. in the India Office.

v1.c13.s3.7

But neither of the above assumptions can be maintained. The *Accounts of Rāma Rāja* do not deal with the judicial administration of the country but with the executive council of the king. And as regards the supposition that the rulers of Vijayanagara had entrusted the question of justice to a military officer, we may dispense with it on the evidence of Nuniz, who not only informs us that the only law of the land was that of the Brahmans, but passes the most adverse judgement on their code of law. "When any one suffers wrong and wishes to represent his case to the King he shows how great is his suffering by lying flat on his face on the ground till they ask him what it is he wants. If, perchance, he wishes to speak to the King while he is riding, he takes the shaft of a spear and ties a branch to it and thus goes along calling out. Then they make room for him, and he makes his complaint to the King; and it is there and then settled without more ado, and the King orders a captain, one of those who go with him, to do at once what the supplicant asks. If he complains that he was robbed in such and such a province and in such and such a road, the King sends immediately for the captain of that province, even though he be at court, and the captain may be seized and his property taken if he does not catch the thief. In the same way the chief bailiff is obliged to give an acount of the robberies in the capital, and in consequence very few thefts take place; and even if some are committed, you give some little present and a description of the man who stole from you, and they will soon know by the agency of the wizards whether the thief be in the city or not; for there are very powerful wizards in this country. Thus there are very few thieves in the land".¹

v1.c13.s3.8

¹ Sewell, For. Emp., pp. 380-1.

v1.c13.s3.9

One may suspect that Nuniz has relied on superstitious and untrustworthy persons in securing these details about the existence of wizards in the capital. His evidence, nevertheless, indicates that an ordinary citizen had direct access to the king in the matter of presenting a petition; and that, therefore, the Vijayanagara monarchs had put into force one of the principles mentioned in the Sacred Law. Valuable as the information of Nuniz certainly is, it may be accepted with certainty only when it is corroborated by independent evidence. For Nuniz's opinion runs counter to that of 'Abdur Razzāq as regards the existence of a separate court of justice, at least of a distinct high official vested with judicial powers. According to the Persian ambassador, it is the daṇṇāyaka who constituted the highest judicial official in the kingdom; in the opinion of Nuniz, the king gave a sort of a rough-and-ready dispensation of justice, independent of the daṇḍanāyaka. Nothing but confusion would have resulted if this were really the case in Vijayanagara. Moreover, it may reasonably be doubted whether Nuniz does not contradict himself in his accounts of the judicial procedure at Vijayanagara. For, in one place, as we have just remarked, he is sure about the existence of Brahmans and of their law; in another, he gives us the picture of the king, regardless of the presence of his advisers, deciding a case on the spot. It is not denied that the rulers of Vijayanagara, in some instances, may have administered justice independently of the Brahman advisers. But the description of Nuniz, especially that relating to the persons who fell prostrate before the monarch, can in no one sense be taken to be a typical instance of how they administered justice in the Hindu Empire. His remarks of this nature are insufficient to justify the assertion that "the administration of criminal justice was harsh and barbarous".¹ The evidence of contemporary travellers, as well as the few details we can gather from inscriptions, must be examined before such a groundless charge is preferred.

v1.c13.s3.10

¹ Iswari Prasad, Med. Ind., p. 434. ² E.C., VIII, Tl. 197, pp. 206-7, op. cit.

v1.c13.s3.11

There are interesting instances of the manner in which justice was administered in Vijayanagara. Some of them deal with the settlement of disputes by the officers of the Government with the co-operation of the local bodies. Thus in A.D. 1363 in the reign of Bukka Oḍeyar, a grave dispute was amicably settled in the Āraga-rājya which was ruled over by Virūpaṇṇa Oḍeyar. The people of Hedḍūr-nāḍ and the temple āchāryas disputed with the Sūris as to the boundaries of the land belonging to the Pārśvadēva temple of Taḍatāḷa in Hedḍūr-nāḍ, in the Tirthahaḷḷi tāluka. The great minister Nāgaṇṇa and various important officials like Pradhāni Dēvarasa, along with other arasus or lords, and the Jaina Maḷappa summoned the elders of the three cities and the Eighteen Kaṃpaṇas, and held an enquiry in the Āraga chāvaḍi or hall. "And having made the nāḍ, agree, they fixed the boundaries (specified) according to the former custom as those of the temple endowment of Pārśvadēva".² This refers of course to the state of affairs in a Vijayanagara province.

v1.c13.s3.12

We have already seen how the same ruler, Bukka Oḍeyār, in A.D. 1368, personally settled the momentous question of the religious rivalry which threatened to create open enmity between the Jainas and the Śrīvaishṇavas. Since it is impossible to imagine that Bukka Oḍeyar would have ventured to be their arbitrator without seeking the counsel of persons versed in the Sacred Law, we may suppose that these may have exercised some control over the actions of the king. And the example thus set by Bukka Oḍeyar must certainly have had its effect on the judicial traditions of the Empire. While describing social questions which necessitated legislation on the part of the people themselves, we shall narrate some instances of the personal interest which the rulers took in communal matters even in later Vijayanagara history.¹

v1.c13.s3.13

¹ Infra, Volume II, Ch. V, Social Legislation, Etiquette and Orthodoxy.

v1.c13.s3.14

It was this liberal atmosphere which the great example of Bukka Oḍeyar spread that concerns us here. The royal officers appointed in temples, for example, also followed the precedent set by that ruler. Viṭṭappar (also called Viṭṭppar of Anegundi), the treasurer of Kampaṇa Oḍeyar (I), was the officer appointed in the Tiruvorriyūr temple, Chingleput district, in Śaka 1290 (A.D. 1368-9). He found that the padiyilār the ishabhattaliyar and the dēvaraḍiyār had struck work in the local temple. This was the third occasion since the days of Rājanārāyaṇa Sambuvarāya that the Mudaliyar of Perumbarrappuliyūr (Chidambaram) and the trustees of the temple had failed to bring about an amicable settlement in that temple. Viṭṭappar caused an enquiry to be made, and with the co-operation of the Vīraśōḷa-aṇukkar and the kaikkōḷars he summoned a joint meeting of the śrī-rudras, śrī-māhēśvaras, the ishabhattaliyar and the devaraḍyar in the vyākaraṇadāna-maṇḍapa of the Tiruvorriyūr temple. He then fixed upon a procedure in the matter of the order that was to be followed in the temple service. But even this official decision was of no avail. Three years later (in Śaka 1293) [A.D. 1371-2] the assembly composed of the same dignitaries met in the very same maṇḍapa, under orders from Kampaṇa Oḍeyar himself, presided over, this time, by the king's officer Tuṇaiyirunda-nambi Koṅgarāyar. More representatives than those who had met before had now gathered, and these included the trustees (of the temple)

v1.c13.s3.15

and the district representatives (nāṭṭār). The whole question of the right of procedure in the temples service was thoroughly threshed out, and settled¹ with a seriousness which does credit to the patience and skill of the judge in handling the significant details of the domestic economy of a temple. The great question however was finally disposed of only in the reign of Harihara Rāya II by the king's officer Mudaliyār Amarkōṇār, after summoning a similar conference.²

v1.c13.s3.16

¹ Ep. Report for 1913, p. 118.

v1.c13.s3.17

² 196 of 1912.

v1.c13.s3.18

A case that recalls the mild treatment of the earlier days is given in an inscription dated Saka 1366 (A.D. 1443-4) of the times of Dēva Rāya II. It refers to a prāyaśchitta (expiatory ceremony) for a criminal offence. The epigraph records a gift of money by the corporation (?) called nakharadavaru of Dharmapaṭṭana to the temple of Nakharēśvara-Mahādēva at the instance of several seṭṭikāras, of Padavakēri, as an expiatory offering for their having murdered two men of that community, while Timmaṇa Oḍeyar was governing Bārakūru-rājya.³

v1.c13.s3.19

³ 404 of 1928; Ep. Report for 1928, p. 61.

v1.c13.s3.20

The fact that legal proceedings were conducted in the presence of, and settled by, the officers of the Central Government is also corroborated by other inscriptions. A civil dispute between the villagers of Ālattūr and Attipparru, in Saka 1328 (A.D. 1406-7), regarding the supply of water from the tank of Perunagar, Chingleput district, was settled in the presence of the Mahāpradhāni Arasar (Tipparasar ?).⁴ An instance which disproves the theory that the monarchs were arbitrary in legal matters is supplied by a record dated Saka 1467 (A.D. 1545-6) of the times of Sadāśiva Rāya. There was a dispute between two parties of the residents of Kondagai, in the Rāmnāḍ district; and their representatives, the mahājanas of the locality, placed the matter before the Emperor, who was encamping in Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam. Sadāśiva Rāya directed that the case was to be settled by an arbitration board of learned men in the presence of his own officer Sāḷuva Nāyaka. On their arriving at a satisfactory decision, remission of certain taxes was made to the village (temple ?) of Tiruvēṅgaḍapuram.⁵ Evidently the board that was made up of learned men would only have been composed of Brahmans versed in the Sacred Law; and the legal fee which the plaintiff and defendants paid took the shape of remission of taxes to the local temple.¹

v1.c13.s3.21

⁴ 357 of 1923.

v1.c13.s3.22

⁵ 2 of 1923.

v1.c13.s3.23

¹ We admit that the quarrel may have been over some land which the temple claimed to possess. The presence of the royal officer is however to be noted. B.A.S. ² C.P. No. 11 of 1912-13; Ep. Report for 1913, p.

v1.c13.s3.24

The presence of a royal officer in legal proceedings seems to have been a feature of this system. A legal dispute arose between the karaṇams and the agrahārikas of Avadūru, in the matter of an inconvenient situation of inām-lands. The question was equitably settled in Saka 1508 (A.D. 1586-7) by Anugoṇḍa Veṅgaḷappa, obviously an officer of the king, who classified the lands into good, bad and medium, and redistributed them.² This delicate question of redistribution of inām-lands or lands given as gifts, sometimes necessitated the intervention of the king himself. It is interesting to observe that we have in this connection the instance of the Emperor Achyuta Rāya about whose alleged injustice Nuniz waxes eloquent in his Chronicle. Achyuta Rāya personally investigated the following case. Whether he intended to inaugurate his reign which afterwards, if the solitary evidence of Nuniz deserves credence, proved unfortunately to be an era of unparalleled oppression, by an impartial attitude towards his people, cannot be determined. But it is certain that in the year Virōdhi on the day of Kārtika-Bahula-Pañchami, Saka 145(2) (Thursday, 21st October, A.D. 1529) on the occasion of his coronation, according to a record dated Saka 1454 (A.D. 1532), the Emperor directed Sāḷuva Nāyaka to assign villages equally, "neither more or less", to the temples of Varadarāja and Ekāmbaranātha. And when Sāḷuva Nāyaka gave more to the former and less to the latter, Achyuta Rāya personally went to Conjeeveram and effected an equal distribution of villages between the two temples by casting lots.³

v1.c13.s3.25

These temple disputes seem to have attracted the attention of the Government, if we may say so, from the admirable manner in which royal officers decided the issues.

v1.c13.s3.26

⁹ We have, of course in earlier period cases of Crown Officers assisting local authorities or sharing in their sessions. ³ 544 of 1919; Ep. Report for 1920, p.

v1.c13.s3.27

¹¹⁴ See also 547 and 548 of 1919.

v1.c13.s3.28

An inscription dated only in the cyclic year Raktākshi, Kārttigai, 27th day, but assigned to the times of Virūpāksha II, son of Harihara II, gives us the details of the settlement of the question of the right (kāni) of worship in the Āragaḷūr temple, Salem district. The judgment was given by Tirumalli Nāyaka, who was evidently an officer placed over the district or deputed for the purpose. The dispute was between the sthānikas or temple managers themselves of the Kāmēśvara temple at Āragaḷūr. The judgment of Tirumalli Nāyaka contains, among other things, the following: "(1) A has been enjoying for a long time the privilege of worshipping all the thirty days of the month in the temple, while actually only fifteen days belong to him by right, and fifteen days belong to another person named B; (2) the privilege of B thus enjoyed by A without proper authority, requires settlement; (3) in support of the latter part of the statement made in (1), there are records in the temple to prove that fifteen days of B (now abandoned by him and enjoyed by A) have under orders been counted as 'unclaimed' (iṟaṅgal); (4) of this privilege of fifteen days so declared unclaimed, you have sold (on your own responsibility) seven and a half days to a third person C and given him a sale-deed; (5) by so doing you have deprived the acquired right of A enjoyed by him for the last eight or ten generations; (6) at this stage, the nāṭṭār (i.e., the representatives of the nāḍu) appeared to have volunteered to settle the question of enjoyment—A being found issueless(?)—and to have called the parties to present themselves before them together with A; (7) you,—the managers—were also required (under my orders) to be present on the occasion, to hear the case, and to carry out the decision arrived at by the nāṭṭār and to have, in the meantime, during this period of hearing (by the nāṭṭār), the worship of the temple performed by outsiders, on payment; (8) A having then appealed to me while I happened to be present at Āragaḷūr, to hear the case personally and give a just decision, I and the nāṭṭār together advised the parties to put their case before the mahājanas and issued an order to this effect; (9) in obedience to our order the mahājanas of the agrahāra of Kuḷattūr, Ālambalam, Saḍaiyanpaṭṭu and Maṭṭiyākuṟichchi met together, heard both sides and decided that although A may have been the hereditary holder of only fifteen days of the privilege, it was not fair to sell a part of the disputed portion there to an outsider like C while the right to purchase (in virtue of long enjoyment) primarily rested in A; (10) accordingly, therefore, to this decision of the mahājanas we order that A must continue to enjoy the full thirty days as before and that the sale-deed you have given to C should be cancelled".¹

v1.c13.s3.29

¹ 413 of 1913. Ep. Report for 1914, pp. 96-7. 430 of 1913 dated Saka 1306 (A.D. 1384-5) gives the clue to the age to which 413 of 1913 could be assigned. B.A.S.

v1.c13.s3.30

This decision of a provincial officer conclusively shows that the State not only controlled the regulation of worship in a temple but also decided justly the minutest points of privileges with the co-operation of the representatives of the district, in a manner which we have now become accustomed to associate with the working of a modern court of justice. The above instance is by no means a solitary example of the care which the State bestowed on bringing civil disputes to a successful issue. As we have related elsewhere, in about A.D. 1500, Yallappa Oḍeyar was the governor over the Āraga-rājya. He granted the Kuppaṭūr-Bhāraṅgi-sīme to the junior queen Bommarasi-ammā of the female apartments for her portion. And his minister Mallarasayya was ordered to assume the management of the province. This officer seems to have found certain discrepancies in the management of the lands belonging obviously to the junior queen, for he is said to have set on foot a detailed enquiry and to have inflicted a singular penalty on the local temple. For, as the inscripiton relates, "in the course of his enquiries from village to village (grāmavan(n)ū-grāmagalan(n)ū-pokku), coming to Beṇṇagere, he stopped the daily allowance at the Nārāyaṇa temple, (Sohrab tāluka), and having had proper prōkshaṇe (or purification) performed for the god, granted a śāsana regulating the worship and ceremonies".²

v1.c13.s3.31

² E.C., VIII, Sb. 323, p. 55; P. II, p. 148.

v1.c13.s3.32

We have already mentioned the great care which Billappa Nāyaka and Keṅgappa Nāyaka, the sons of Hanumi Nāyaka, bestowed on the question of granting a dharma-śāsana to Liṅgaṇṇa, younger brother of Appā Bhaṭṭa, a Brahman, in A.D. 1565.³ The settlement of the temple disputes in Tiruvoṛṛiyū in A.D. 1368, in A.D. 1371, and, finally, in the reign of Harihara Rāya II; the case which Achyuta Rāya decided in connection with the equitable distribution of lands between the Varadarāja and Ekāmbaranātha temples; the laudable manner in which Tirumalli Nāyaka ended the dispute as regards the rights of one of the priests of Kāmēśvara temple; and the opinion which Billappa Nāyaka and Keṅgappa Nāyaka received from the old residents of the Saṇte-Bennur-sīme, —all these prove that the Vijayanagara monarchs did not mete out a rough-and-ready justice, as has been asserted in some quarters; but that, on the contrary, they solved knotty points of etiquette and privilege, left untouched or decided unfavourably by their own officials; and that they allowed their subjects the right of appeal, even though it was against the decision of powerful temple authorities, and, sometimes, of the officers of the Crown. To a certain extent their judicial procedure is not incompatible with the following regulation of Śukrāchārya: "The king must personally inspect every year the grāmas, puras, or cities, and dēśas or districts, and provinces, and must know which subjects have been pleased and which oppressed by the staff of officers, and deliberate upon matters brought forward by the people".¹ Neither the compilers of the Sukranīti nor the monarchs of Vijayanagara were unaware of the oppression which the officials of the State caused to the people.

v1.c13.s3.33

³ Supra, Ch. VI, Administration (continued), p. 339.

v1.c13.s3.34

¹ Sukranīti, I, ll. 751-2, p. 51. For an interesting inscription dealing with the settlement of a civil dispute in connection with the office of a śannbhōga and the award of a jayarekhe-patrike in A.D. 1664 see My. Arch. Report for 1918, p. 54. For the decision of the Agent of Nāgama Nāyaka in a dispute between two factions in Tittagudi, S. Arcot, see 6 of 1903.

Linked texts (6)