State and Government in Ancient India c18.s1.86

c18.s1.86

The theory of some early writers that the village councils or Panchāyats owed their judicial powers to the prevailing anarchy,² no court of the king being available, is completely disproved by the evidence of the Smṛitis, inscriptions and Maratha records. Smṛitis, observe that the decisions of the village councils, duly arrived at, must be enforced by the state because it has duly invested them with the judicial powers.³ Several documents of the Maratha period have been found showing how kings like Shivaji, Rajaram and Shahu would refuse to entertain a suit, if directly brought to them; they would invariably refer it to the village Panchāyat concerned.⁴ Even Muslim Kings of Bijapur used to do the same. A suit involving the right to the post of the headman of the village of Masur was decided against one Bapaji Musalman by the Masur Panchāyat, and the decision was confirmed by the Tehsil or Taluka Panchāyat of Karad. Bapaji Musalman then appealed direct to the King Ibrahim Adil Shah, complaining that he had not received proper justice owing to communal prejudice. The emperor refused to entertain the suit in his own court, but ordered its retrial by the Hindu Panchāyat of the famous holy place of Paithan. When this Panchāyat also refused to reverse the lower decisions, Ibrahim Adil Shah declined to take any further action. These cases will show clearly that it was the considered and deliberate policy of the state to invest the village Panchāyats with extensive judicial powers. Parties to a dispute had no alternative but to submit the case to their decision.