Hindu Administrative Institutions c10.s2.8

c10.s2.8

The qualities in a lawyer that marked him out to occupy judicial offices were independence of character, great learning in the various branches of law, and impartiality. These were essential in a judge according to Yājñavalkya.³ The *Mṛchchakaṭi* says: ‘Reproach indeed is easy, discrimination but of rare occurrence, and the quality of a judge is readily the subject of censure. A judge should be learned, sagacious, eloquent, dispassionate, impartial : he should pronounce judgment only after due deliberation and enquiry ; he should be a guardian to the weak, a terror to the wicked ; his heart should covet nothing, his mind be intent on, nothing but equity and truth, and he should keep aloof from the anger of the king.'¹ The judges were commonly called the *dharmādhikārin*, the *pradeṣṭṛ* or the *paṇḍita*.² The chief judge is called the *prāḍvivāka* who presided over the royal *sabhā* which was the High Court of justice. On this officer Nārada writes: ‘He is called a (*prāḍvivāka*) chief judge who—fully acquainted with the eighteen titles (of law) and with the eight thousand subdivisions thereof, skilled in logic and other branches of science and thoroughly versed in revealed and traditional lore, investigates the law relative to the case in hand by putting questions (*prāt*) and passing a decision (*vivecayati*) according to what was heard or understood by him.’³ This officer was the representative of the king and invariably a Brahman.⁴ To this Bṛhaspati adds that the judge should examine the accused by questions and counter-questions.⁵ He must begin speaking in a pleasing manner perhaps to create confidence and then deal with the accused according to the law. Vyāsa rules that he must examine the case with the assessors and never by himself.⁶