State and Government in Ancient India c19.19

c19.19

The most interesting feature of the judicial administration was the system of jury. Even the king and the chief justice could not begin the trial of a case, if they were not assisted by a panel of three, five or seven jurors.¹ The number of jurors was deliberately kept uneven to provide for the contingency of a difference of opinion. The jurors differed from their modern counterpart in an important respect; they were to be not only impartial, but also well grounded in the law.² They were to be fearless exponents of what they believed to be the correct legal position. A juror keeping prudent silence has been condemned. If necessary, the jurors were to express their opinion, even if it was in opposition to that of the king; it was their duty to restrain a wilful king going astray and giving a wrong decisions.³