Hindu Administrative Institutions c10.s2.16

c10.s2.16

The other court-officials mentioned in the *Arthaśāstra* are the bench-clerk in modern parlance, and the officers of the jail (*bandhanāgārādhyakṣa* and *cāraka*). These, not excluding the judges, were liable to punishment if they misconducted themselves. The nature of the punishments varied according to the gravity of the offences. Cases, wherein the *pūrvasāhasa daṇḍa* was applied, were threatening, brow-beating, sending out of court or unjustly silencing; double of that punishment for defaming or abusing a party to a case in his court. The *madhyamasāhasa daṇḍa* was applied for not asking a question which ought to be asked (*pṛcchya*), asking one which ought not to be asked (*apṛcchya*), rejecting the answer to one which has been asked, and for tutoring, prompting, or reminding a witness. The *uttamasāhasa daṇḍa* was again for corruptly giving advice to parties, settling wrong issues, delay in the settlement of issues, wrong devices to postpone cases, wasting time so as to tire out parties, forcing them to leave the court and taking up cases already disposed of. Again a judge or commissioner who imposes an improper fine is liable to a fine of twice the amount, or of eight times the sum by which the fine imposed exceeds or falls short of the proper sum. A judge or commissioner unjustly inflicting corporal punishment is liable to the same punishment, or to pay twice the amount of fine ordinarily imposed in lieu thereof.¹ There are also punishments mentioned for offences committed by the bench-clerk as well as the jail officials.² The *Vyavahāramayūkha* (p. 3) on the authority of Bṛhaspati and Vyāsa mentions another court-official (साध्यपालः). He was to carry to conclusion matters at issue (साध्यस्य साधकः) by inviting and protecting the witnesses, the plaintiffs and the defendants. He must be honest, truthful and in the confidence of judicial officers. He was invariably a member of the Sūdra community.¹