History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.514

v4.c63.514

Generally no one was allowed to take the law into his own hands except as to recovery of debts (which will be discussed below). But Nār. (pāruṣya⁶⁵⁴ 11-14) contains the following remarkable passage: 'If a *śvapāka*, a *meda*, a *caṇḍāla*, one devoid of a limb, one gaining livelihood by killing animals, an elephant driver, *vrātya* (i. e. deprived of caste for non-performance of *upanayana*), a slave, one who disregards his elders or spiritual teacher—if these should transgress the limits they must observe towards their superiors, they should be punished then and there by the person offended and the person so doing is not regarded as committing an offence (equal to theft). Should any such low person insult another (who is his superior) that man himself shall punish him and the king has nothing to do with the punishment. These people are like the refuse (dregs) of humanity and their property also is impure. The king is entitled to inflict bodily punishment (whipping), but he should not inflict fines on them'. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 270 quotes a text of Vṛddha-Manu of similar import and explains that the words 'the king should avoid taking fines' refer to cases of grave offences⁶⁵⁵.