Local Government in Ancient India c11.4

c11.4

by Nārada: 'Family meetings (*kula*), corporations (*śreṇī*), village assemblies (*gaṇa*), one appointed by the king, and the king himself are invested with the power to decide law-suits; and of these each succeeding is superior to the one preceding it in order' (I. 7).¹ The significance of this passage from Nārada is thus brought out by the commentator Asahāya: ‘A suit decided in a village goes on appeal to the city (court). What has been decided in the city (court) goes (on appeal) before the king (i.e. the king’s court); but there is no appeal from the decision of the king, whether right or wrong.’² We are not, however, concerned with the higher or king’s courts (forming the last two varieties in Bṛhaspati’s classification of courts) but only with the lower and local or popular courts (the first two classes of courts mentioned by Bṛhaspati). These popular courts were, according to the Smṛtis, constituted by the *kula*, the *śreṇī*, the *gaṇa*, or the *pūga*. The gradation of the courts indicated by Nārada is also indicated by other law-givers. Bṛhaspati states: ‘Relatives, companies (of artisans), assemblies (of co-habitants) and other persons duly authorized by the king should decide law-suits among men, excepting causes concerning violent crimes (*sāhasa*). Meetings of kindred, companies (of artisans) assemblies (of co-habitants) and chief judges are declared to be resorts for the passing of a sentence to whom he whose cause has been previously tried may appeal in succession'. This is further explained thus: 'When a cause has not been (duly) investigated by meetings of kindred, it should be decided after due deliberation by companies (of artisans); when it has not been duly examined by companies (of artisans, it should be decided) by assemblies (of co-habitants); and when it has not been (sufficiently) made out by such assemblies (it should be tried) by appointed (judges)' (I. 28–30).