History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.2

v4.c63.2

That to administer justice impartially and to punish the guilty were among the prime functions of the sovereign has been stated above (p. 57). The king was deemed to be the fountain (i. e. the distributor) of justice. Kauṭilya³²³ (I. 19) prescribes that the king was to look into the disputes of citizens and country people in the 2nd part of the day (divided into eight parts). Manu (VIII. 1–3) states that the king desirous of looking into the disputes of people should enter the *sabhā* (the hall of justice) accompanied by brāhmaṇas, ministers and should there decide every day the causes of litigants. Śukra IV. 5·45 is the same as Manu VIII. 1, Vas. 16·2, Śaṅkha-Likhita, Yāj. I. 327 and II. 1, Viṣṇu Dh. S. III. 72, Nār. (I. 2), Śukra IV. 5·5, Mānasollāsa II. 20, verse 1243 state that the administration of justice was the personal concern of the king. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 1 says that protecting the subjects is the highest duty of a king and that that duty cannot be discharged without eradicating and punishing the wicked, which latter requires that the king should administer justice (vyavahāradarśana). Medhātithi on Manu VIII. 1 also says that protection consists in the removal of troubles, secular and spiritual (adṛṣṭa). Manu VIII. 12 and 14 (= Nār. III. 8–9 p. 42) personifies the administration of justice as Dharma incarnate by representing that when justice is administered the dart of adharma or falsehood by which dharma is pierced is taken out from the body of Dharma. Yāj. (I. 359–360) declares that the impartial administration of justice yields the same rewards as solemn vedic sacrifices do. In this way administration of justice was held to be a very sacred duty. Manu VIII. 128 (= Vṛddha-Hārīta VII. 194) declares that a king who punishes those that do not deserve to be punished and who does not punish those that deserve punishment incurs great obloquy and goes to hell. Vas. (19·40-43) prescribes one day's fast for the king and three days' fast for the *purohita* when the king lets off those that deserve punishment and three days' fast for the king and the *kṛcchra* penance for the purohita when the king punishes the innocent. The Mahābhārata³²⁴ (Anuśāsana 6·38 and chap. 70) and Rāmāyaṇa say that if a king intent on pleasures does not show himself to litigants who approach him for decision, he would suffer like king Nṛga. The Śukranītisāra (IV. 5·8) also says the same thing. In the Rāmāyaṇa (VII. 53–54) king Nṛga is said to have been cursed to become a chameleon for a long period by two brāhmaṇas who had a dispute about the ownership of a cow and could not see the king for many days. Megasthenes (Frag. XXVII. pp. 70–71) says 'the king remains the whole day in court without allowing the business to be interrupted.' Kaut.³²⁵ (I. 19) gives the advice that, when in court, the king should not cause petitioners or litigants to wait long at the door, for when a king makes himself inaccessible, those who are near him create confusion about what should or should not be done, whereby the king engenders disaffection among his subjects and makes himself a prey to his foes. The king's court³²⁶ of justice was called *dharmasthāna* (Śaṅkha-Likhita), *dharmāsana* (Nārada I. 34, Manu VIII. 23, Śukra IV. 5·46) or *dharmādhikaraṇa* (Kātyāyana and Śukra IV. 5·44). 'The place where the decision of the truth of the plaint (lit. the cause or root of dispute) is carried on by a consideration of the rules of the sacred law is called the *dharmādhikaraṇa* (the Hall of Justice)'—says Kātyāyana. Kālidāsa (Śākuntala V) and Bhavabhūti (Uttararāmcarita I.) employ the word dharmāsana.