INTRODUCTION

The source of study of Mughal Administration is scattered at many places. The Ain-i-Akbari1 of
Abul Fazl is a mine of information. The Mughal Administration System was in the nature of a
military rule. The Mughals played a very significant role in the judiciary system in India as they
brought new changes in judiciary system and gave a great impact on judiciary system in India.
Judicial system of Mughal India has full influence in the present judiciary system in India with
some changes. To quote J.N Sarkar "Thus the Mughal System at one time spread over practically
all the civilized and organized parts of lndia." 2 He further evaluates and points out the general
features of the Mughal Administration which is following; First, a strong and well-organized
Government contributing to peace and order; Secondly, a highly centralized form of government
with an extensive administrative machinery; Thirdly, an age of Renaissance in Art and literature;
Fourthly, An empire of unity in which different racial elements were more or less reconciled and
contributed their skill, ability and wisdom to make the government prosperous.3
The Mughals were despotic rulers into whose hands all civil and military powers were
concentrated. The Sovereign was the head of the state and its chief executive. He was the
supreme commander of the imperial forces and the fountainhead of justice; his word was law.
There was no written constitution to prescribe his functions or impose limitations on the exercise
of his despotic powers except the fear of a rebellion or the moral obligation of observing the
customary laws or traditions of the society. The sovereign determined the policy of the state
which was carried by his ministers and bureaucracy without a demur. Being the pivot of the
imperial government, the sovereign performed the onerous duties of the state conscientiously and
diligently. The organization of the judicial system of the Mughals was entirely the same as laid
down by Muslim jurists and established in northern India by the sultans of Delhi. Many
institutions were same as it was in the Delhi Sultanate. For instance the sultan was the fountain
pen of judiciary system.

1
Abul Fazl, Ain-i-Akbari.
2
Husain Wahed, Administration of Justice during the Muslim rule in India.
3
Ibid p 30.
 NATURE OF MUGHAL GOVERNMENT

The Mughal Administrative system was in the nature of a military rule and was necessarily a
centralized despotism. They were foreigners who had their own system of administration which
they imposed in India. According to JN Sarkar, “The Mughal Administration presented a
combination of Indian and extra-Indian lements, or, more correctly, it was the Persian Arabic
system in Indian setting. The practices which were prevalent in India and the customary law
were respected as far as it did not run counter to the root principles of all Islamic governments;
and generally speaking in village administration and the lower rungs of the official ladder the
Indian usage was allowed to prevail while the foreign swayed almost exclusively the court and
the higher official circles.

The Mughals ruled independently without recognizing outside authority. Like the Sultans of
Delhi the Mughal Emperor was the ‘fountain of all honours’. He was the Head of Executive, the
fountain- head of justice, the commander-in-chief of the army and the final arbiter in everything.
From the days of Akbar, the emperor came to be regarded as the representative of God on Earth.4

The Mughal Government was a highly centralized autocracy. The Crown was the pivot of the
entire administrative machinery. As the government was absolute and highly centralized, the
written records multiplied. No wonder, the Mughal Government was called a Kaghzi Raj or
paper government. A large number of books had to be maintained, e.g., copies of
correspondence, nominal rolls, descriptive rolls, history of the services of the officers, news-
letters and dispatches, etc. 5

Principal Shri Ram Sharma says that “The Mughal Government was despotism of a peculiar
brand.” Its absolute authority was never so interpreted by its rulers. The Emperors left alone
quite a large part of their subjects. They did not concern themselves with the religious beliefs of
their people. Theoretically and to a large extent in practice, the judiciary was independent in a
sense of its own in Mughal Indian. The administration of justice through Hindu Pundits and
Qazis owed nothing to the king. The organisation of the Government, the ceremonies and the

4
HV Srinivas Murthy, History of India (Part I) p 228.
5
VD Mahajan, History of Medieval India (10th edn, S Chand & Company Law) p 229.
procedure in the Mughal Court, the method of raising revenue and recruiting public servants
owed more too Indian traditions than to Islam.

The vast majority of their subjects were non-Muslims and the Hindus were largely left in the
enjoyment of their institutions. In certain respects, the public law of the country was left alone,
but the same was invaded in certain other respects.  On the whole, it cannot be said that the
Mughal Rule was based on Islamic Principles.

LOCAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

In this heading there will be a short discussion on how was the local and provincial Government
under the Mughal Rule.

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

The administrative agency in the province of the Mughal Empire was an exact miniature of that
of the central government. Akbar had brought into existence a highly centralized administrative
machinery, albeit his empire was too vast to be controlled effectively from the imperial capital.
For the sake of administrative convenience, therefore, it was divided into fifteen provinces called
subahs. Sher Shah Suri was the founder of the local system of government, including the districts
(sarkars) and tehsils (parganas). The administration was concentrated in the provincial capital.
There were the Governor (officially styled Nazim and popularly the Subadhar), the Diwan, and
the Bakshi, the Qazi, the Sadr, the Buyutat and the censor. The Governor called the Nazim,
Subedar or sipahsalar, was the chief executive of the province who held his court at the
provincial capital. Each province had a uniform system of Government with the exception that,
in some cases, a single governor was appointed for more than one province. These provincial
bakhshis were really officers attached to the contingents that accompanied the different
Sunbathers rather than officers of the subhash as geographical unit.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
A Mughal subah or province was divided into a number of sarkars or districts; and each district,
in turn, was divided into parganas or tehsils. A district was governed by a senior shiqdar or
faujdar. The chief shiqdar, commonly known as faujdar, was primarily a military officer who
administered the district with the help of a small contingent of troops. He was the principal
assistant of the subedar to help him in establishing peace and tranquility in the district. The
second principal district officer, called amalgulzar , was head of revenue eatablishment; he as
well as other senior revenue collectors were nicknamed kroris, viz the person who collected
crores of rupees from the people to fill the coffers of the imperial treasury.6

POLICE ORGANISATION

The Mughal police organization can be discussed under three heads: village police, district police
and urban police. Referring to the police organization in the villages the village headman and his
subordinate watchman were held responsible for maintenance of law and order within their
jurisdiction and also if some loss incurred to a person within their limits they were held
responsible for it.

The Faujdar was responsible for maintenance of law in district or Sarkar. His duties included
suppression of disorder of any kind, policing of roads and collection of state dues from rebellious
villages. In case if any highway robbery or theft occurs they were made to either recover the
property or to compensate the owner for the loss.

The Kotwal was in charge of the urban police. In the cities and towns, all police duties, including
the task of maintaining public order and decency, were entrusted to the Kotwals, whose duties, as
enumerated in the Ain- i-Akbari, were multifarious: (i) to detect thieves, (ii) to regulate prices
and check weights and measures, (iii) to keep watch at night and patrol the city, (iv) to keep a
register of houses and roads, (v) to prevent the slaughter of oxen, buffaloes, horses or camels (vi)
to prepare an inventory of, and take charge of, the property of deceased or missing persons who
left no heirs and (vii) to prevent the burning of women against their will.7

6
Originally, the amalguzar alone was called krori as he was expected to collect about a crore of dams (fifty
thousand rupees) as land revenue from the Sarkar or district.
7
RC Majumdar, An Advanced History of India (4th edition, Macmillan) p 551.
 He was required to keep a register of houses and roads. He divided roads into quarters and kept
an assistant for direct charge of each of those quarters and he was supposed to report daily to the
kotwal and be tractable towards him. His duty was to apprehend the thieves and find out the
stolen goods for that purpose he had also appointed certain detectives or spies. And if any
misfortune occurs then he had to make good the losses. But these conditions of making good the
losses was only in papers the stark reality was that they always searches ways of evading and
minimising their responsibilities. Thevenot a French traveler says that during his journey to
Surat, an American whose goods had been stolen and was not recovered by the kotwal was
threatened with torture by him to withdraw his complain

In spite of measures by the State the security conditions varied from place to place public
security varied from place to place. Peter Mundy who travelled in India from 1630 to 1633 says
that the country “swarms with rebels and thieves”.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

The attitude of the Mughal Government towards law and justice was opposed to modern
conceptions. It was not good in this matter. The Government was not responsible when it came
to maintenance of peace and security in the rural areas. A lot of responsibility was endowed on
the villages as they were not only responsible for their own safety but they also have to look after
the safety of the travelers on the neighbouring roads.

TREATMENT OF HINDUS IN ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

The Sultans of Delhi transplanted Islamic Law and legal institutions in India but these laws
turned out to be a failure in taking deep roots into the soil. The Islamic Law made a sharp
distinction between the Muslims and the Non-Muslims; it refused to grant the rights of full-
fledged citizenship to the latter.8 The Hindus were not treated equally with the Muslims, they
were treated like zimmis or ‘the protected people’ and this protection of life and liberty was
endowed to them by paying tax to the Sultanate or the Islamic State and that was jaziya. Jaziya
tax which is mandatorily paid by non-Muslim residing in the empire of a Muslim ruler for the
8
JL Mehta, Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India (Vol II Sterling) p 370.
protection provided to him by the ruler and also it serves like permission to a person to follow
his religion according to his choice. This shows that although Mughals claimed to be a secular
ruler (The Mughals had three separate judicial agencies one among them being a secular court 9 )
it was just a utopian situation but the harsh reality was that the treatment given to the Hindus was
not at par to the Muslims. By referring to certain books we find that ordinarily, Islamic law was
implemented for administration of justice but in case of Hindus their personal law was taken into
consideration but when it comes to criminal cases Islamic law was imposed upon them.

MUGHAL RUERS AS LOVERS OF JUSTICE WITH DISCUSSION ON JAHANGIR’S

“CHAIN OF JUSTICE”

The Mughal rulers were said to be lovers of justice. Akbar has even said that if he was guilty of
doing an unjust act then he would rise in judgment against even himself. According to Perushi,
Akbar was most zealous and most watchful in the matter of administration of justice. He
personally heard the disputes and administered even-handed justice with the assistance of muftis
and pundits who interpreted the ‘personal law’ of the Muslims and Hindus for him. 10 It is said
that there were three groups of crimes – there were offences against God, offence against the
State, and the offences against private individuals. And to tackle with these offences there were
infliction of three types of punishment like Hadd, Tazir, Qisas and Tashir. Hadd was a
punishment for crimes against God. Tazir was punishable by scourging, public reprimand,
dragging of the offender and exposing to public scorn. Qisas was in the nature of reprisal. The
person who was wronged his relative had the right to seek compensation from the offender. On
the other hand Tashir included a process of public ignominy. It was in the form of shaving the
head of the person and making him sit on an ass, with his face towards his tail, covered with dust
etc.11 The Emperor was, generally speaking, a benevolent despot and an enlightened ruler by
discretion who evinced great interest in the happiness and welfare of his people. 12 Some foreign
historians also talk about the speedy justice delivered by Mughal rulers.

9
Said by Foreign writer Sir Thomas Roe.
10
JL Mehta, Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India (Vol II Sterling) p 371.
11
VD Mahajan, History of Medieval India (10th edn, S Chand & Company Law) p 251.
12
VD Mahajan, History of Medieval India (10th edn, S Chand & Company Law) p 250.
 While discussing Mughals as lovers of justice reference should also be made to the golden
chain of Jahangir which was hung for the benefit of the people. Mughal Emperor Jahangir tried
an innovative policy of the ‘Chain of Justice’ to address the grievances of the people who could
directly approach the King, the highest judicial authority of the empire, without any fee, fear or
formality and also it is said there was no discrimination between rich and poor. According to
legends there was a long golden chain with bells on his palace and the people who had
grievances can come and pull the chain and his or her grief would be heard. It is also said that the
chain which was paced there was made of pure gold which was 80 feet in length and had 60 bells
with a weight of 1 quintal. Also, further there was a meaning attached to the number of times a
person rings the bell in continuity.

If someone rings the bell just once it means that the person had fight with someone. If the bell
rang twice it indicates that someone is not being paid wages. If the bells rings thrice it indicates
that someone has been robbed. If the bell rings four times it indicates that a murder has taken
place (which was rare). If the bell rings five times it indicates that some other issue has taken
place. Soldiers would observe the number of times the bell rang and take the person to the
appointed judge. When Jahangir was the ruler he got complain from an old lady that soldiers
were abducting defeated kingdoms women/ girls and in the consequence her granddaughter was
abducted. Jahangir arranged a parade of all his commanders and asked the old lady to identify
among them and after that he returned the girl to the lady and asked the commander to
compensate and also to deter further happenings he gave a cruel death penalty publicly to the
commander. This tells the gravity of delivering justice to the people he was sure about it and and
there is policy of deterrence to avoid such incidents in future.13

QAZI THE HIGHEST JUDICIAL OFFICER

The Qazi-ul-Qazat was the highest judicial officer of the country. He was the one responsible foe
the proper and efficient administration of justice. According to Sarkar, there was “no system, no
organization, of the law courts in a regular gradation from the highest to the lowest, nor any
proper distribution of courts in proportion to the area served by them.” 14 Cases were tried and
disposed and tried of by the Qazis, the Muftis and the Miradls.
13
Online Source.
14
VD Mahajan, History of Medieval India (10th edn, S Chand & Company Law) p 250.
QUALIFICATION OF A QAZI

There were certain qualifications which were laid down in the Mughal Rule for the appointment
of a Qazi. They were as follows:

1. Adult Male: According to Hanfi Law a women could be appointed as a Qazi, but the Mughal
Emperors confined the jurisdiction of women Qazis to the Harem only.

2. Intelligent and sound man who can deliver justice without discrimination.

3. A free man.

4. A Muslim; Non Muslims could not be appointed Qazis. For a Qazi strict adherence to Islamic
Law even in private life was deemed necessary for the acceptance of office entailed upon the
encumbents a detailed study of religious laws and sometimes of the duty of leading the Friday
prayers is necessary.

5. He must be capable of being a trustworthy witness. Special heed was to be paid to qazi’s
character and a high standard of conduct was expected of him.

6. He must be of sound hearing and sight, because no judgment of a Qazi was regarded as valid
if it was given at a time when his understanding was not clear.15

POWERS OF QAZI
The powers and functions of Qazis were wide and their responsibilities grave. The order of the
Qazi has to be obeyed. It was said that although the King recognized as the fountain head of
justice has to accept the dominion of Qazi in the matter of judicial organisation. It is said that
Akbar had struck down the Islamic theory of state in its application to the Mughal empire. He
had to fight a tough struggle for establishment of dominion over the ulemas and the Qazi. It is
also given in testimony of Abul Fazl that Akbar also removed certain Qazis from their post as
they were found to be corrupt and greedy but later on the scenario changed he was in no mood to
disturb the hornets’ nest of the state judiciary and to further avoid criticism he had not brought
about any fundamental change in the state judiciary.

15
Munshi Ram Manohar lal, The Mughal Government (AD 1556-1707) p 213-214.
DUTIES OF QAZI
The Qazi was responsible for trying both civil and criminal cases of the Hindus as well as of the
Muslims. When they dealt with Hindus, they were required to take into consideration their
customs and usages. They were also required to be just and honest in their dealings with the
people, the dealings of the case was conducted in the presence of the parties concerned and also
were not allowed to accept any present from the parties concerned.

The Qazi was a judicial officer but alongwith it he performed many other functions too. He was
required to discharge civil, religious and clerical duties. He even performed revenue related
functions when he collected jaziya from the people.

TYPES OF COURT DURING THE MUGHAL RULE

During the Mughal period there was no such highest court of justice which can lay down a law
for the country. There were three different courts working at the same time but were independent
of each other in their functioning. There were courts of religious law, court of secular law, and
political courts.

Religious law courts were presided by the Qazis and the cases were decided by them according
to Islamic Law. They were helped by the Muftis who expounded the law. The Mufis were
required to read books on jurisprudence days and night so that they can learn about precedents to
be applied in further cases. The responsibility of the Miradls was to pronounce the judgment.

The Courts of Secular law was presided over by the Governors, Kotwals and Faujdars. Akbar
during his reign has entrusted responsibility of cases related to Hindus under Brahmins and the
panchayats also fell under this category.

The Political Courts dealt with political cases like rebellions, theft, robbery and murder etc. The
presiding head for these courts were Subahdars, Faujdars, Kotwals etc.

PUNISHMENT

As discussed earlier Mughal Rulers were Lovers of Justice and to maintain law and order in their
empire they laid stress upon strict consequences if someone commits any offence. It is said about
Jahangir that he possessed no deliberation in infliction of punishment. Terry informs,“ Trials are
quick and so are executions: hanging’ beheading, impaling, killing with daggers, elephants,
serpents and other like, according to the nature of the fact.” 16 Shah Jahan is said to be more cruel
than his father and Aurangzeb is said to follow the Muslim Law to leave his impact as a great
ruler did not use any form of punishment to deter the crimes and without which it was really a
difficult task to run an empire. But among these rulers Akbar was the one who inflicted
punishment but it was after zealous and watchful thinking.

INVESTIGATION PROCESS

Not much is known about the investigation procedure followed during the Mughal Reign. It is
said that in the reign of Aurangzeb Hindus as witnesses were not accepted. Also it is said that
giving of capital punishment was to be decided by the king. Aurangzeb made it a rule that no one
to be detained in jail without permission of Qazi, no one should be arrested unless a prima facie
case existed against that person and the person should be produced before the court at the
earliest.

CRITICISM OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION DURING MUGHAL RULE

The thing which was prevalent during the Mughal Rule was corruption and bribery. It is said that
one can expect to have justice who had either money to bribe or influences to exercise. As there
was no written law, there was great scope for discretion and hence corruption and favouritism.
People had an option to complain to the Emperor but it was also not hassleless because the
journey to the capital was a very long one and alongwith it the journey was expensive too. The
next possibility was that if it is against certain officers of the court they may not allow the
complain to reach the Emperor as they had power in their hands. According to an observation:
“There were no professional lawyers, trained in law and conversant with social usages and
regulation of the State, and since the parties had to plead their cause in person, we may assume
that justice was not always done to the simple villager who was helpless against a rapacious
official or an influential opponent.”17 It is also mentioned by Abul Fazl in his testimony that
corruption was so rampant among the Qazis during his reign that he led to the dismissal of a
large number of Qazis who were known to be corrupt and greedy.

16
W Foster, Early Travelers p 344.
17
Ishwari Prasad, Muslim Rule in India, p 413.
The situation was a difficult one in civil cases it was very hard to get justice delivered. If the
debtor was unable to pay the money back to the creditor, the property of the debtor could be
auctioned for the satisfaction of the debt and also he could be sold as a slave to the creditor or
handed over as a serf to the creditor but there was one remedy for the debtor if the creditor didn’t
possess enough money to bribe the officer, he can’t get the justice delivered in his favour. It was
a very expensive procedure to get justice delivered and also a person needed sufficient influence

The condition of the jails was also not a satisfactory one. They were also not well maintained.
Basically, the Mughal Rulers didn’t believe in imprisonment but they believed in fines,
confiscation of property, mutilation of limbs or death to imprisonment in jail. Torture was also
allowed and sometimes the extent was that even person died with the torture. It is stated by some
historians that people were also held in detention for securing confession and the period for that
was as long as the person didn’t confess and there was a solution for this too if the person agreed
to change his religion to Islam then he would be freed from all his obligations. It shows that
although strict adherence was there that is good but on the part of the state to torture people to
such extent cannot be justified and also the bribery and corruption on the part of the state
worsens the situation.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

HV Srinivas Murthy, History of India Part I p 228.........................................................................5

Ibid p 30...........................................................................................................................................4
JL Mehta, Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India (Vol II Sterling) p 371.....................9
JL Mehta, Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India (Vol II Sterling) p 370.....................9
RC Majumdar, An Advanced History of India p 551.......................................................................8
VD Mahajan History of Medieval India (10th edn, S Chand & Company Law) p 250...........10, 11
VD Mahajan History of Medieval India (10th edn, S Chand & Company Law) p 251.................10
VD Mahajan, History of Medieval India (10th edn, S Chand & Company Law) p 229..................5

ONLINE SOURCES

https://angel1900.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/jehangirs-bell-of-justice/