History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.115

v4.c63.115

In the drama Mṛcchakaṭika (Act IX) we have a graphic, though brief, description of judicial procedure in ancient India. That drama is at least as old as the 4th or 5th century A. D. It is very instructive to compare the procedure described in it with that gathered from Nār., Bṛ. and Kāt. who constitute the leading triumvirate on law and procedure in the smṛtis and who probably flourished a little before and a little after the drama. It will be found on comparison that the procedure in the drama is in essentials the same as that of the three smṛtis mentioned above, though there is some difference in minor details. The principal points in the drama bearing on judicial administration may be brought together here at one place. The court house was called 'adhikaraṇa'; the chief judge was called adhikaraṇika; he was assisted by the *śreṣṭhin* (a prominent merchant or banker) and a *kāyastha*; all three are referred to as 'adhikaraṇabhojaka' and are addressed as *adhikṛta* or *niyukta* (appointed by the king); when a despot was on the throne, the judge's position was precarious and he could be deprived of the post at the king's sweet will (the Śakāra, king's brother-in-law, threatens the chief justice with summary dismissal). There was a servant who arranged the seats in the court, inquired whether there was any litigant, summoned Vasantasenā's mother and Cārudatta (this man corresponds to the puruṣa or sādhyapāla); inquiry was made by the judges as to whether any one wanted to file a suit or complaint; the śreṣṭhin and kāyastha are asked by the presiding judge to write down the important parts of the complainant's statement; a private person (who was not a relative) could complain to the court about an alleged murder; the judge allowed an old person like the mother of Vasantasenā and a respectable and well-known citizen like Cārudatta to occupy a seat when replying to questions from the court, but Cārudatta was deprived of this concession when a *prima facie* case was made out against him; the court-house (being probably situated near the palace) had near it mantrins, dūtas, spies, an elephant and a horse (and the chief of the city police is asked to ride the horse and find out whether the corpse of a woman lay in the public garden), and kāyasthas; Cārudatta was called upon to state the truth and the judge tells him that in the court no trick (*chala*) will be allowed to pass;³⁷³ when a strong case was made out against Cārudatta by circumstantial evidence he was asked to confess his guilt, otherwise he was told that he would be whipped (i. e. this refers to whipping to extort a confession, vide above note 332); the judge was only to pronounce the judgment and recommend the legal punishment, while the king had the last word about the exact punishment; Manu's work was an authority; a brāhmaṇa offender was not to be sentenced to death, but was to be banished with all his wealth, though some kings did not act up to this rule; impalement was carried out by cāṇḍālas; ordeals of fire, water, poison and balance were known and Śūdraka conveys (*viṣasalilatūlāgniprārthite me vicāre*) that Cārudatta had prayed for trial by ordeal, but that the chief justice, because there were witnesses and circumstantial evidence, refused that request.