Hindu Administrative Institutions c10.s4.14

c10.s4.14

It has been already pointed out that the *vākyānuyoga* (वाक्यानुयोग) is the jury pronouncing on guilt or innocence, and the *karmānuyoga* (कर्मानुयोग) is the judgment of the chief justice. That this was the current practice Prof. Banerjee agrees. He writes: ‘The three or five members of the judicial assembly acted as jurors as well as judges but the final decision rested with the chief judge.’¹ There is every reason then to suppose that Kauṭalya certainly advocates open trial and is for acquittal of the innocents. The following case in the *Mahābhārata* may be read with interest in this connection.² When all the Pāṇḍavas including Draupadī lost their independence by gambling and became slaves of Duryodhana, Draupadī appeals to the open court as to the validity of Yudhiṣṭhira’s action in having wagered her as the object of his gamble after he himself became a *dāsa*. Bhīṣma says that he could not understand the subtleties of *dharma* and answered that Yudhiṣṭhira was their best judge.³ Bhīṣma, Droṇa, Vidura and several others acted, as it were, as jurors, but the majority inclined in favour of Draupadī who pleaded most eloquently, stressing her points on the merits of her case. The final decision lay of course with the king. He ruled that Draupadī’s point was in order and released all the Pāṇḍavas from slavery. Here Vidura entreats every fellow-member in the court to speak out *dharma* or law, and *satya* or truth. If a jury having known all the legal points involved would speak with prejudice, or keep silence, it amounted to his having uttered a falsehood and hence his action was not moral.⁴ It is Bṛhaspati who prescribes that it was the function of the king to decide whether the case before him was true or not.¹