Hindu Administrative Institutions c10.s4.10

c10.s4.10

That the jury system was a *de facto* institution even in centuries before the Christian era is proveable. Jayaswal writes: ‘They (the judges) made up the Sabhā and were, to quote a modern word, the jury of the Court.’² Pramatha Nath Banerjee³ also accepts the prevalence of the jury system. But to him the point of its actual working is not clear. He quotes the text of *Nārada*, *Śukranīti* and other *smṛtis*⁴ which go to prove that besides the members of the assembly, other persons present in court and acquainted with the law, not excluding the members of the trading community, were asked to offer their opinions on the matter. The obscure point becomes clear if we were to simply ponder over the statements given. It is reasonable to conjecture from this that influential and qualified persons often formed the jury of the court, and these were chosen then and there. From this it would appear that the jury was not a permanent institution while the judges held permanent offices.