State and Government in Ancient India c19.27

c19.27

The Smṛitis are almost unanimous in stating that the *sabhyas* or jurors should be Brāhmaṇas.² The study of the Dharmaśāstra was usually cultivated in the Brahmanical circles, and a deep knowledge of the sacred law was necessary for the proper discharge of the duties and functions of the juror. This must be the reason for the usual view of the Smṛitis that the *sabhyas* should be Brāhmaṇas. Where, however, the knowledge of the sacred law was not necessary, as when the case concerned the disputes among the cultivators, merchants and foresters, Dharmaśāstra writers themselves recommended that the cases should be tried with the help of the jurors selected from the castes or the professions of the parties themselves.³ Manu goes to the extent of declaring that if the jurors did not belong to the caste of the parties, a proper decision would be almost impossible.⁴ We have evidence to show that in the Vijayanagar administration, the jurors were Brāhmaṇas, where complicated law points had to be decided; otherwise they were merchants and agriculturists. Śukra's statement that the *sabhayas* were to be from all the castes seems to be more in correspondence to the usual reality⁵ than that of Yājñavalkya that they were to be Brāhmaṇas.