The Mauryan Polity c8.s4.t7.1

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