Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity (Based on the Arthashastra of Kautilya), Vol. I c13.40

c13.40

A peculiarity of Hindu law courts in ancient times was that the judges had to pay a penalty for their iniquity. They were strictly enjoined to decide cases free from all circumvention, steady in all circumstances, impartially and diligently, thus winning the love and confidence of the people; but if they were guilty of any laches, partiality or any such misconduct unworthy of a judge, they could not escape with impunity. This feature is also noticed in Chandra Gupta's law courts. If a judge threatened, rebuked, silenced or drove out a party to a suit, he was liable to the lowest amercement;¹ and for abusing a party, to a fine of double the amount. If he put irrelevant questions to a party, wilfully omitted to ask a pertinent question, did not note down what he heard in reply to his queries, tutored or provided a party with his previous statements, he was fined the middlemost amercement. If he inquired into unnecessary circumstances, caused delay by such inquiry, postponed work on flimsy pretexts, tired the parties out of court by his dilatoriness, misled them, helped the witnesses with clues, or resumed the work already disposed of, he was punished with the highest amercement. If he committed any of the offences a second time, he was fined double the amount and dismissed.