Public Administration in Ancient India c15.36

c15.36

The relations subsisting between the different kinds of courts are thus described by Brihaspati: "When a cause has not been (duly) investigated by (meetings of) kindred, it should be decided after due deliberation by companies (of artisans); when it has not been duly examined by companies (of artisans), it should be decided by assemblies (of co-habitants); and when it has not been (sufficiently) made out by such assemblies (it should be tried) by appointed (judges)."² And again, "Judges are superior in authority to (meetings of) kindred and the rest; the chief judge is placed above them; and the King is superior to all, because he passes just sentences.” Nārada¹ and Yājñavalkya² also describe these relations in terms almost identical with those used by Bṛhaspati. A verse quoted by Asahāya in his commentary of Nārada runs thus: “A case tried in the village (assembly) goes (on appeal) to the city (court); and one tried in the city (court) goes (on appeal) to the King (i.e. the King’s Court); but there is no appeal from the decision of the King, whether the decision be right or wrong.”³ These and other similar passages leave no doubt in our minds that there was a regular mode of appeal from the decisions of the inferior courts to the superior courts. How far this right of appeal was recognised in practice, and to what extent the people actually availed themselves of the right are questions which our present knowledge of the history of Ancient India does not enable us to answer with any degree of satisfaction.