The Mauryan Polity c8.s4.t7: The judge and other court officials

The Mauryan Polity c8.s4.t7

Language: English

The judge and other court officials

c8.s4.t7.1

The judge or the dharmādhikārin was the chief official of the High Court of Justice.³ In this connection the dharmasthas, amātyas and pradeṣṭāraḥ are mentioned. The dharmasthas, from the very nature of the term, were men versed in the law of the land and of unimpeachable character. They were judges who adjudicated cases and dispensed justice on the nature of the evidence tendered by the witnesses on examination. These were probably assisted by a panel of counsel who went by the name of amātyas. The pradeṣṭāraḥ were commissioners who occupied somewhat lower status, and answer perhaps to our modern District Judges and District Magistrates. One feature of the administration was to entrust dispensation of justice not to a single judge or commissioner but a panel of judges or commissioners. The usual number was three. When the Court was proceeding with the case, a class of officials known as *lekhakas*, literally writers, took down the evidence tendered by both the parties of the plaintiff and the defendant and presented it for the judge to decide the case on its merits. If the judge on the other hand misconducted himself and did not do proper justice, he was also punished like any other citizen. It is evident from the chapter entitled *sarvādhikāra-ṇarakṣaṇam* that the judge guilty of offence was tried in the Samāhartā’s court, the Samāhartā being assisted by the Pradeṣṭāra officials.¹ Perhaps this reminds us of the Administrative law-court of France (De Droit Administratif) instituted for the trial of officials. Thus as in modern France there were two sets of courts (*a*) ordinary courts for the trial of private individuals; and (*b*) administrative courts for the trial of officials.² The offences punishable on the part of a judge are (*a*) offending the contending parties for no reason whatsoever, (*b*) causing insult to the parties by raising irrelevant points (*c*) tutoring witnesses, (*d*) showing partiality to either party (*e*) or otherwise infringing the rights of the parties concerned. The punishment was in the first instance fines, and then, dismissal, if the judge was found guilty of the same for a second time.³

c8.s4.t7.2

³ Ar. Śās., Bk. IV, ch. 9.

c8.s4.t7.3

¹ Ibid.

c8.s4.t7.4

² Gilchrist, *Principles of Political Science*, p. 319, (Third ed.).

c8.s4.t7.5

³ punaraparādhe dviguṇam sthānātvyaparopaṇam ca.

c8.s4.t7.6

The officers of the jail were known as *bandhanāgārādhyakṣa* and *caraka*. The former was the Superintendent of the Jail and the latter was one of his assistants. If these officers were found charged with the ill-treatment of the prisoners or with violating the rule of law they were also punished. Some of the offences punishable were the infliction of punishments more severe than what was due, ill-treatment of the prisoners in the matter of rations and bedding, transfer of prisoners from one jail to another without assigning sufficient reason, and illicit intercourse with female prisoners. From the duties expected of the *dharmamahāmātras* of Aśoka's Edicts, it would appear that these officials correspond to the *dharmasthas* or judges of the civil and criminal courts mentioned by the *Kauṭalīya*. The suffix *mahāmātra* like the term *adhyakṣa* in the *Arthaśāstra* is a technical term for an official. According to Aśoka, these officials were to be engaged with the employers and employees, and were employed for taking steps against unjust imprisonment, and the release on insufficient grounds of those already imprisoned. They were also to see that the people did not molest one another. Some of these were the functions of the *dharmasthīya* court of the *Kauṭalīya*. At the least the *dharmamahāmātras* of the Edicts can be compared to the Superintendents of the Jails found mentioned in the *Arthaśāstra*. According to Aśoka¹ these dispensers of justice must be impartial as between one citizen and another. All men were equal in the eyes of law, and proper award of punishment not only entitled the judges but also the king whom they represented, to merit heaven.²

c8.s4.t7.7

¹ First separate R.E. : Dhauli, Corpus, pp. 93-94. See also *Ind. Ant.* 1890.

c8.s4.t7.8

² *viyohala-samatā daṇḍa-samatā*—IV P.E., Corpus, p. 123.

c8.s4.t7.9

Elsewhere Aśoka expects these judicial officers to behave towards the people as a father towards his son. He realises that this is in a majority of cases an ideal rather than the actual. For, says he, ‘some single person only learns this (and) even he (only) a portion (but) not the whole’.¹ On the negative side Aśoka expects his judicial officers to be bereft of unhealthy dispositions like envy, anger, cruelty, hurry, want of application, laziness and fatigue. In his opinion the possession of some of these dispositions would lead to maladministration of justice, and this would in the long run retard the progress of the State.²

c8.s4.t7.10

¹ First separate R.E., Dhauli.

c8.s4.t7.11

² Corpus, p. 95.

c8.s4.t7.12

It is noteworthy that the Kauṭalīya mentions some of these as tending to mar the administration of justice, and provides for the punishment of such judges as those who failed to discharge their duties properly.³ It was the sincere wish of the emperor that none of his subjects suffered from unjust imprisonment or undeserved capital punishment. To see that his officers fulfilled their duties impartially and justly, certain commissioners were sent out from the headquarters to watch their conduct and report to the authorities at the capital.⁴ This reminds us of the Kauṭalīyan prescription to set members of the Intelligence department over these officials among others. Again, as under every civilised government the Mauryan kings gave a general amnesty to prisoners on certain occasions. According to the Kauṭalīya the young, old, diseased and destitute prisoners had to be set free on the king’s birthday and on the full moon days. Prisoners were also released on the acquisition of a new territory, on the anointment of the crown prince, and on the birth of a son to the king.¹

c8.s4.t7.13

³ Ibid.

c8.s4.t7.14

⁴ Corpus, p. 95.

c8.s4.t7.15

⁵ Corpus, p. 93.

c8.s4.t7.16

¹ bandhanāgāre ca bālavṛddhavyā dhitānāthānām ca jātanakṣaṭrapaurṇamāsīṣu visargaḥ . . . . apūrvadeśādhigame yuvarājābhiṣecane| putrajanmani vā mokṣo bandhanasya vidhīyate|| Bk. II, ch. 36.

c8.s4.t7.17

This is confirmed by the Aśokan inscriptions especially by the Fifth Rock Edict. Some portion of the Girnār Edict is unfortunately not traceable while the Mānsehrā gives the following text:—

c8.s4.t7.18

bhaṭamayeṣu bramaṇibhyeṣu anatheṣu vudhreshu hida-su(khaye) dharma-yuta-apalibodhaye viya(p)uṭa te bandhana-badha(sa) paṭivi(dhanay)e apalibodhaye mokshay(e) (cha iyaṁ) anubadha p(r)aja t(i) va kaṭrabhikara ti va mahalake ti va viyapraṭa te *Corpus*, p. 75; see also p. 32, Kālsī version.

c8.s4.t7.19

Perhaps a new interpretation of these lines is required in the light of the *Arthaśastra* texts. It is evident that Aśoka was familiar with the ruling of the *Arthaśastra* in this particular instance as in others. For Aśoka speaks of as much as twenty-five jail deliveries effected by him in the course of 26 years since his anointment to the throne.² Yet another healthy regulation relating to the jail was the frequent visits to the prisoners made by the authorities concerned once a day, sometimes once in five days, to enquire into their conditions in regard to their specific work and health, and some-

c8.s4.t7.20

² Pillar E. V. *Corpus*, p. 126.

c8.s4.t7.21

yāva saduvīsati vasa-abhisitena me etāye amtalikāye paṁnavāsati bandhana-mokhāni kaṭāni.

c8.s4.t7.22

times grant them money perhaps for their personal upkeep. This is evident from the following verse:—

c8.s4.t7.23

divase pañcarātre vā bandhanasthān viśodhayet|
karmaṇa kāyadaṇḍeṇa hiraṇyānugrahena vā||
—II, 36.

c8.s4.t7.24

The translation of this śloka by Shāma Śāstri is faulty. It runs as follows: ‘Once in a day or once in five nights, jails may be emptied of prisoners in consideration of the work they have done, or of whipping inflicted upon them, or of an adequate ransom paid by them in gold.’¹

c8.s4.t7.25

¹ P. 179. Trans. (Second ed).

Linked texts (1)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit