The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c12.183

c12.183

The *dīwān-i-maẓālim*, as an organized institution, dates back to the time of ‘Alī. The Abbasid caliphs either themselves gave audience or instructed their *wazīrs* to do so.⁵ The Hindus also considered it the duty of their monarchs to hear complaints in public audience.⁶ The *Ṭabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī* implies that the *dīwān-i-maẓālim* was presided over by the *amīr-i-dād*; this would be true only when the sultan was not present in person.⁷ Ibn Baṭṭūṭah says that Muḥammad bin Tughluq heard complaints every Monday and Thursday. First a suppliant would go to one of the *ḥājibs* who were entrusted with this duty; it is interesting to note that Fīrūz, who later succeeded to the throne, was one of them. If the suitor failed to gain redress, he could go to the *qāḍi-i-mumālik*. The last resort was the sultan, access to whom does not seem to have been too difficult.⁸ A complaint to the sultan seems to have been very effective, for creditors made a point of dunning defaulting debtors in front of the palace.⁹ The *Ṣubḥ-ul-a‘shā* gives a picturesque account of a court of *maẓālim*. The sultan sat on a high throne overlaid with gold, surrounded by his bodyguard and officers. The qāḍī-i-mumālik sat at the monarch's side to give him legal advice. When the ushers had announced the opening of the court, the suitors stepped forward and presented their complaints.¹ On days when the sultan did not sit in public, the ḥājibs received the complaints and passed them on to the chief ḥājib who submitted them to the sultan. Under Sikandar Lodī, the wazīr presided over the maẓālim court: the legal advice was given by the qāḍī who was assisted by twelve learned lawyers.² Suppliants could also present petitions when the sultan rode out; Ibn Baṭṭūṭah mentions the bell in the palace of Īltutmish with a chain so that any suppliant could ring it³ The governors were required to sit as courts of maẓālim. They were helped by the ṣāḥib-i-dīwān and the qāḍī. The courts of maẓālim heard complaints against officials. Sometimes disputes were settled by the executive; in such cases it was open to the parties to go to civil courts if they felt dissatisfied with the award.