Hindu Administrative Institutions c10.s5.1

c10.s5.1

Yet another feature of the ancient judiciary was the organization of various courts with different powers of jurisdiction. There was also a supreme court to which appeals could be made from the lower courts.³ In the last chapter we saw four kinds of courts mentioned in the *Dharmaśāstra* literature. According to Bṛhaspati the courts in order of importance are the meeting of the kindred (कुल), corporation of the merchants (श्रेणि), assembly of the neighbourhood (पूग), and the jury of the court (नृपोधिकारिन्). Appeal lay from the lower to the higher.⁴ But Hārīta quoted by Chaṇḍeśvara divides the court in four divisions, but quite different from Bṛhaspati.⁵ The *sabhā* is a popular one and resembles the sacrificial assembly. The judges or the jury were seven, five or three according to Bṛhaspati. According to Manu that *sabha* where three learned Brahmans who are jurors sit together with the officer appointed by the king resembles that of Brahma the Creator.¹ For not delaying justice Bṛhaspati with his keenness of vision speaks of separate courts for foresters, soldiers and the out-door traders.² The *Arthaśāstra* mentions a different order of courts. This falsifies the assumption of Dr. Otto Stein that Kauṭalya does not invest the king with judicial powers of appeal.³ True there was a separate establishment of Judges but it must be remembered that these transacted the business in his name and the sentences passed by them were his sentences. On account of the empirical notions which swayed the mind of Kauṭalya,⁴ the king was saddled with heavy responsibilities which, as was already said, necessitated a separate establishment. This form of the judiciary was a *de facto* institution even centuries prior to the *Kauṭalīya*. It is laid down again that petitioners could present their petitions, and it is the duty of the king to render justice to them without delay. This indicates that the king still had the power of appeal. Thus there was the king's supreme court of justice besides courts established on the outskirts of the state, in the capital towns of the several administrative districts: *janapada sandhi, sangrahana, droṇamukha, sthānīya*.⁵ Each of these courts was constituted by three ministers of law and three directors. Besides these the *Arthaśāstra* recognizes local courts of the village where the *grāma-vṛddha* decided the local cases.¹ They had the power of deporting out of the village a thief or an adulterer whose case had been proved. Here again is another proof of the fact that Kauṭalya’s conception of administration of justice shows that he is dealing with an empire and not a small kingdom as is believed by some scholars. The composition of the judicial assembly according to the *Vasiṣṭha Saṃhita*, is not less than ten—four men versed in four Vedas respectively, one versed in *mīmāṃsa*, one in the *aṅgas*, one in the *smṛtis*, three leading men of the first three *āśramas*. Baudhayana also speaks of an assembly of ten members. He again speaks of five, three and one member according to the circumstances of the case.² From these the inference is easy to draw that there was always the judge appointed by the state. He was assisted by a number of assessors the number of which was by no means a fixed one but varied according to the nature and circumstances of the case.