Administrative System of the Marathas c19.s2: 2. Pratap Sinha's Yadi
Administrative System of the Marathas c19.s2
- Language
- English
2. Pratap Sinha's Yadi
c19.s2.1
The old customs about procedure were compiled and arranged in a *yadi* by Pratap Sinha Maharaj, Chhatrapati of Satara. Pratap Sinha reigned from 1808-1839 A.D. and the fall of the Peshwas took place in the year 1818. His reign, therefore, coincided with the early period of English administration in the Bombay Presidency. But the rules and regulations drawn up by him in his *yadi* were based upon the old customs of the land, and give us a clear idea of the policy by which the old Maratha rulers were guided in the administration of justice. Says Chhatrapati Pratap Sinha in the *Nyaya*- dhish *Prakaran* of his yadi—"The good old rule of this realm has been to make amicable settlement of all disputes through the proper exertion of the neighbours and to call a *Pancha-yet* only when there is no other remedy."² He goes on to say that this excellent custom should be encouraged and the Patils, Mamledars and Shete Mahajans (in towns and market places) should try to induce the parties, if they came to them, to settle their dispute by arbitration. Even serious quarrels, beyond the jurisdiction of Patils and Shete Mahajans and Panchayets appointed by them, says the Raja, it would be well if settled through the arbitration of neighbours.³ Intent on the welfare of his subjects, and perhaps impelled by the good old custom, the Raja says that in case of settlement by arbitration the parties would be exempted from the payment of *Harki*, which they would have to pay, if the case was referred to Royal Courts or Royal officers. In case the parties failed to settle their disputes amicably, they should go to an arbitrator and the Raja assures us that such an arbitrator need not fear Royal displeasure for his laudable efforts.⁴ 3. *The Separation of the Executive and the Judiciary unknown :*
c19.s2.2
² B. I. S. M., Tritiya Sammelan Vritta, pp. 51-52. ³ Ibid. ⁴ The original document has been published in the Tritiya Sammelan Vritta of the Bharat Itihas Shanhodhak Mandal by Mr. Bhaskar Vaman Bhat.
c19.s2.3
When such efforts for amicable settlement or settlement by arbitration failed, the parties had recourse to the regular instruments of justice. The judicial officer in the village was the Patil as usual, above him the Mamlatdar and the Sarsubhedar and above all the Peshwa or his minister as the representative of the theoretical head of the state, the Raja of Satara, who was like the King of England, the fountain of justice and honour. In towns, learned judges, well-versed in the Shastras, were appointed for judicial duties and were called Nyayadhish. Thus we see the Maratha statesmen were not acquainted with the theory of the separation of the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary. The Peshwa and his minister, the Sarsubhedar the Mamlatdar and the Patil in the village exercised all these widely different functions. The Nyayadhish was a Judiciary pure and simple.
c19.s2.4
4. *Panchayet :*
c19.s2.5
The great instrument of administration of civil justice was the Panchayet. Pratap Sinha Maharaja says that for cases of minor importance the Patil in the village and the Shete Mahajan in the towns and market-places could appoint Panchayets. The parties on such occasions had to sign a *Rajinama* or agreement to abide by the decision, and the Panchayet was then to proceed with its enquiry, draw up a *saransh* or summary of the case and pass its judgment. The judgment had to be confirmed by the Mamlatdar. But if it was discovered that the Panchayet was corrupt or prejudiced against a party, the case was to be reported to the Mamlatdar, and if the Mamlatdar after proper enquiry found the Patil's report correct, the case was to be sent to the Sarkar. If the Patil refused to appoint a Panchayet or to dispose of the case in a legal manner, or if the parties rejected a Panchayet of their own village, the case was to be referred to the Mamlatdar; it would then be the Mamlatdar's duty to appoint a Panchayet with the Patil's cognizance or to assemble a Panchayet at a place other than the village of the disputants. In serious cases beyond the jurisdiction of the Patil or officers of his rank, the Mamlatdar was to appoint in the first instance an arbitrator with the consent of the parties. Failing this measure a Panchayet in the usual manner had to be appointed and the usual *Rajinama* had to be signed. The decision of the Panchayet was generally confirmed and upheld by the Government unless there was a charge of corruption against the members of the Panch.