History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s24.6

v1.c6.s24.6

Bṛhaspati was probably the first jurist to make a clear distinction between civil and criminal justice.³⁷⁴ He divided the eighteen titles into two groups, those springing from wealth ( 14 titles ) and those springing from injury to beings ( 4 titles ). This distinction was probably dimly perceived by even Gautama, when he says that in disputes based on injury there is no hard and fast rule about witnesses ( i. e. about their interest in the subject of dispute ).³⁷⁵ Bṛhaspati like Nārada lays down the rule that a legal decision should not be arrived at merely on the basis of śāstra and that when a decision is devoid of reasoning, there is loss of dharma, for even a good man may be held to be a bad one or what is good may be held to be sinful in a judicial proceeding, just as Māṇḍavya was held to be a thief on a decision without thoughtful reasoning.³⁷⁶ Bṛhaspati gives such elaborate definitions and rules about procedure from the filing of the plaint to the passing of the decree that he can very well stand comparison with modern legislators on the same subjects.