The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c16.s1.3

c16.s1.3

As in Manu, the king should be assisted by three assessors.¹ But the popular element enters into the administration of justice in a much more pronounced manner than in Manu. Cultivators, artizans, trade-guilds, artists, money-lenders, dancers, religious mendicants and even robbers are told to administer their disputes according to rules of their own professions. Families, craft-guilds and local assemblies may be authorised by the king to dispose of law-suits among their members except such as concern violent crimes. Brihaspati also provides for appeal from meetings of kindred to companies, thence to assemblies and finally to the royal judges on the ground that the lower courts have not duly investigated or deliberated on the cause. The law which the royal courts are told to administer takes account of sacred injunctions, custom and equity. Thus, the king in the court is exhorted to listen to the Purāṇas, codes of law, and rules of polity, to act on the principles of equity, and abide by the opinion of the judges and the doctrine of the sacred law. It was a political necessity to preserve intact the time-honoured institutions of every country, caste and family. "Otherwise the people would rise in rebellion, the subjects would become disaffected towards their rulers; and the army and treasure would be destroyed." Among those who are not to be consulted in adjudication are people ignorant of local customs. A little later, Brihaspati expressly lays down that no sentence should be passed merely according to the letter of the law, but the circumstances of a case must be closely examined. Local custom, however, can be overruled by royal edicts, which thus constitute a distinct source of law. As in Manu, the law on defamation and adultery is vitiated by considerations of caste. Brihaspati counsels itinerant courts. "For persons roaming the forest, a court should be held in the forest; for warriors, in the camp; and for merchants, in the caravan.”¹ It is needless to follow Bṛhaspati into rules of procedure, etc., for they correspond to those enunciated by Manu. But it may be pointed out that, according to him, law-suits fall into two categories, those originating from disputes regarding wealth and those relating to injuries. Roughly, the distinction corresponds to civil and criminal suits.² In the absence of the king, some Brāhmaṇa versed in law is to act as judge.³