[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [Administrative System of the Marathas](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923) › c19.s6 # Administrative System of the Marathas c19.s6: 15. Maratha and English Judicial Institutions compared Administrative System of the Marathas c19.s6 - **Language:** English ### 15. Maratha and English Judicial Institutions compared ### [c19.s6.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s6.1) The fact is judicial institutions were still going through a process of evolution in India as elsewhere, and evolution proceeded on different lines in different countries. In England for instance more stress was laid on procedure. English jurists had given a scientific turn to their legal studies and the Legislature of the land had by a series of Acts made a systematic effort to remove any ambiguity where it previously existed as to the purpose and intents of the existing laws. Even the unwritten customary laws had been given a definite shape through the decision of the courts. There was a well organised machinery for enforcing the laws of the land and there was a body of professional men well versed in laws to help the judges in interpreting them. The English suitor knew quite well where to file his case in the first instance and to whom to appeal and he was ordinarily sure of a fair decision provided he could afford to pay the costs of a lengthy suit, for a good lawyer always charged a high fee and a chancery suit caused proverbial delay. ### [c19.s6.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s6.2) The Maratha system on the other hand excelled in simplicity. There was no codified law, no fixed procedure, and even a lengthy suit hardly cost the parties anything but the unavoidable worries and anxieties. But these advantages were marred by the disadvantage caused by the lack of settled procedure. The suit could be prolonged indefinitely by the obstructive tactics of an unscrupulous party. He could claim a trial by ordeal after the Panchayat had already delivered a judgment. And if he found one ordeal inconvenient he might demand a second trial by an ordeal of a different description. If the Mamladar was a dishonest man, and he was seldom proof to present, the losing party might still get the decision arrived after so much delay and so many ordeals cancelled, and one who had an influential and highly placed friend at the court had always some advantage over his less fortunate adversary. To add to these difficulties there was no professional lawyer and the provisions of the law, written and unwritten, were not always clear and definite. The old Hindu law-givers did not always agree and differences were sometimes accentuated by their commentators. Customs varied in different districts and offered no valuable aid to the bewildered judge. The result was that the honest poor might often find it difficult to defend his rights against the dishonest rich. But the English laws and English lawyers and English courts would hardly help him better. For in the first instance the poor man could not expect to engage as able a lawyer to defend him as his wealthy adversary and the heavy expenses of a lengthy suit would ultimately prove his ruin, even if he was so fortunate as to get a favourable verdict. It is unnecessary to labour this point any further. It is clear that both the systems had their merits and demerits. Elphinstone passed very severe strictures upon the weak points of the Maratha judicial system, because in his own country he had not been familiar with them. But he was by no means blind to the merits of the Panchayat as he had recommended its continuation even after the British conquest of the Peshwa's territories. --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sen-1923.c19.s6) · Pramāṇa