Chandragupta Maurya and His Times c12.5

c12.5

*Nyāya* thus stands out as the ultimate source of law. It is explained that where there is a conflict in a case (*arthe*) between established custom, *Saṁsthā*, and *Dharmaśāstra* ('such as that of Manu') or between the king's decree (*Śāstraṁ rājaśāsanam*) and what is established by evidence (*Vyāvahārikaṁ Sākshivachanam*), the conflict is ultimately to be solved in the light of *Dharma*, i.e., *Dharmaśāstra*. In such a case, neither the evidence of witnesses nor the opinion of the king will count. When, however, there is a conflict between *Śāstra* or *Dharma-Śāstra* and *Nyāya* supported by local *dharma* and *āchāra* or custom, then *Nyāya* is to prevail. In such a case, the maxim of a *Dharmaśastra* will have no effect (*tatra pāṭhohi naśyati*). For instance, as the commentator points out, there is a maxim of the Dharma-śāstra that if there is a breach in the embankment, and in its neighbourhood a man is found with a spade in his hand, he is to be taken as the man who committed that breach (*Kuddāla-pāṇirvijñeyaḥ setubhettā samīpagaḥ*). But this decision will not be accepted in case the holder of the spade is a child incapable of committing that offence.