History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.103

v4.c63.103

The chief judge and the sabhyas³⁶⁴ were not to hold conversation in private with any one of the litigants while the suit was pending and if they did so they were liable to be fined (Kāt. 70). Kauṭ. IV. 9 prescribes fines and even corporal punishments for judges (*dharmasthas*) and pradeṣṭṛs who corruptly give wrong decisions, cause loss or sentence to corporal punishment. If the sabhyas³⁶⁵ give a decision, which is opposed to smṛti and usage, through friendship, greed or fear, each was liable to be fined twice as much as the fine to be paid by the defeated party (Yāj. II. 4, Nār. I. 67, Kāt. 79-80). The Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 180 and Bṛ. prescribe banishment and forfeiture of all property for sabhyas that give an unjust decision or take bribes. Kāt. 81 prescribes that the loss caused by the fault of sabhyas must be made good by them to the losing party, but the decision given by them will stand³⁶⁶. Śukra (IV. 5. 63–64) prescribes the punishment of a thief for a *lekhaka* (a scribe) taking down a different deposition from the one actually given or for a sabhya making use of such a deposition knowingly; IV. 5. 93 prescribes fine and removal from office if a sabhya gives a wrong decision through greed &c. and IV. 5. 282 prescribes a fine of 1000 paṇas against a judge giving a corrupt decision. There must have been a few cases of judges taking bribes in ancient India as in modern times (even Lord Bacon in the 17th century was found guilty of taking bribes as Lord Chancellor and confessed his guilt). In the Daśakumāracarita³⁶⁷ (VIII. p. 131) the cynical jester Vihārabhadra says to his king that judges decide matters just as they please after taking bribes and the king thereby incurs infamy and the sin of doing injustice. It was believed that when a just decision was given, the king and the sabhyas became free from sin, the sin reaches him only who is guilty (whether plaintiff or defendant); but where an unjust decision is rendered a quarter of the sin falls on the litigant (plaintiff or defendant) who is guilty of *adharma*, one quarter each on the witnesses, the sabhyas and the king. The Baud. Dh. S. I. 10. 30–31, Manu VIII. 18–19, Nār. (III. 12–13) have the same two verses. The Vyavahāratattva (p. 200) says that Hārīta also had the same verses. In the Mattavilāsa-prahasana (pp. 23–24) reference is made to the giving of bribes to the presiding officers of courts (we should read '*adhikaraṇa-karaṇikānāṁ*' instead of '— kāruṇikānām). Kauṭ. IV. 4 makes it a duty of the *samāhartṛ* to employ spies in various disguises to test the honesty of judges (*dharmasthas*) and magistrates (*pradeṣṭrs*) and, if they were found to be ready to succumb to bribes, to order their banishment.