The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c7.111

c7.111

The judicial administration still seems to be in a state of flux. Besides the Sabhâ or its committee which seems to have acted as a court of justice in some causes, the king probably performed some judicial functions. A hymn in the Atharvaveda refers to him as a stern corrector.¹ In the Kâṭhaka Saṃhitâ, a Râjanya is mentioned as an overseer (adhyakṣa) of the punishment of a Śûdra.² This may be a case of the delegation of judicial authority. To the expression Madhyamaśī, which occurs in the tenth Maṇḍala of the Ṛigveda³ and reproduced in the Vâjasaneyi Saṃhitâ⁴ and the Atharvaveda,⁵ divergent meanings have been assigned. Probably it means an arbiter or mediator and thus points to the practice of arbitration during this period. On judicial punishments the evidence is very scanty. The Pañcaviṃśa Brâhmaṇa says that a Purohita might be punished with death for treachery to his master.⁶ It appears that treason was already regarded as one of the highest crimes and that it brought the severest punishment on the greatest in the land. A hymn in the tenth Maṇḍala of the Ṛigveda shows that a gambler who lost heavily and got deep into debt found himself bereft of home and reduced to slavery.⁷ It is not impossible that heavy indebtedness led to slavery in ancient India as in ancient Greece and Rome. From the Taittirîya Saṃhitâ it is clear that various fines were inflicted for various offences.⁸