Administration of Justice

in Ancient India
Administration of Justice in Ancient
India

In the earliest times the administration

of justice was not a duty of the ‘State’.
The aggrieved party had to take
necessary steps to redress the wrongs
done. The most usual step was to sit
before the house of the wrong doer and
not to allow him to move out till his
claim was satisfied.
In case he failed to get the necessary
redress on his own he could take the
assistance of his friends. This
explains why we do not find any
references about the judicial
organisation in the early Vedic
literature. In the later Vedic period
we come across an official Sabhapati,
who is considered to have been a
judge.
We get some indications to the effect
that the Sabha or popular village
assembly acted as arbitrator in certain
Cases.
The Dharmasutras and Arthasastra
give us an indication that the judiciary
had fully developed by their times. The
king was the Supreme Judge and it was
his duty to punish the wrong-doers. If
the king failed to perform this duty he
was sure to go to hell.
The king always devoted lot of his time to
adjudication everyday. Quite often he
delegated his judicial work to the Chief
Justice or other royal officials.
The general tendency was to encourage
the town Councils and village panchayats
to try local disputes. Only, serious cases
were tried in the Royal Court. In these
cases the king was expected to observe
strict impartiality and decide the case
according to the ‘Dharma’.
Law was based on Srutis and Smritis. In
fact law was considered as the king of kings
and it could not be easily set aside.
Composition of the courts also differed from
time to time and from State to State. But one
common feature of the judicial administration
of the various States was that the system of
jury was in existence. Even the King and the
Chief Justice were assisted by a panel of
judges. The number of the jurors was normally
three, five or seven. It was deliberately kept
odd to ensure majority decision.
The judges were expected to be learned,
religious, devoid of anger and impartial.
The jurors were expected to express
their opinion even if it was in opposition
to the king.
In fact it was their Supreme duty to
restrain a willful king going astray and
giving a wrong decision.
To ensure the impartiality of the judges
they are not allowed to give private
interviews to the litigants until their case
was settled. Arthasastra insists that the
honesty of the judges should be periodi­
cally tested by agents provocateurs.
Vishnu Smriti prescribes very serious
punishments for the corrupt judges viz.
banishment(Relegation) and forfeiture
of all property.
In addition to the regular official
courts, certain popular courts also
existed in ancient India. During the
Vedic period the Sabha probably
worked as a popular court. The
disputes regarding boundaries of
property were settled by the village
elders.
Yajnavalkya-Types of Courts

PUG
A

SHR
ENI

KUL
A
These popular courts continued to
flourish right till the beginning of the
British rule, because their decisions
were usually upheld by the kings. The
government courts only accepted certain
cases which came as an appeal against
the decisions of the popular courts. It
may be noted that the popular courts
tried only civil cases and did not enjoy
any power with regard to criminal cases.
Evidence
While considering the case due
weightage was given to the evidence. In
serious criminal cases evidence from all
the sources was accepted, but in the
civil cases the evidence of women,
learned Brahmans, government
servants, minors, debtors, persons with
criminal records etc. was not given
much weightage.
The evidence of the members of low caste people
was not valid against persons of higher caste.
False evidence was greatly abhorred. A person
who acted as false witness was expected to suffer
various temporal penalties, including a hundred
unhappy births in future lives.
In case of serious suspicion the accused could be
tortured to elicit confession. These tortures
included whipping.
Usually Brahmans, children, the aged, the-sick
and pregnant women were exempted from
torture. In case of women the torture was rather
light.
The observance of various types of
ordeals to ascertain the guilt were also
resorted to settle the cases outside the
court. The most common ordeals were
ordeals by fire and immersion. The
Smriti writers did not approve of these
ordeals in normal cases and permitted
them only in those cases where there was
no concrete evidence on either side.
Different types of punishments were in vogue.
These included the fines, imprisonment,
banishment, mutilation and death sentence. The
fines were the most common punishment While
deciding upon the punishment, the judges took
into account the nature of the crime, the motive of
the accused, his age and status in society.
Usually lighter punishments were inflicted on the
Brahmanas and Kshatriyas. The early Sutras had
laid down fines for the punishment of murder—
1,000 cows for killing a Kshatriya, 100 for a
vaisya, and one for a sudra or a woman.
The killing of a Brahman could not be
expiated by a fine. Their cattle were
handed to the king, who passed them on
to the relatives of the slain person. Thus
under the Ancient Indian system of
justice fine could atone all but the most
serious crime, the fines however differed
according to the seriousness of the crime
and it ranged from small copper coins to
the confiscation of the entire property.
Imprisonment was another common
punishment.The Smriti writers do not
mention it, but was quite popular during
the times of Ashoka and Harsha. Hiuen
Tsang says that imprisonment was the
most usual form of punishment under
Harsha. Sentenced to imprisonment were
often made to work on road and in public
places to deterrent effect on others.
Mutilation of limbs was also resorted to
as a punishment usually the hands of the
thief were mutilated.
Banishment, another type of
punishment, was usually inflicted on
the privileged classes. The death
sentence was imposed on murderers,
traitors, dacoits and persons guilty of
heinous sex crimes. However, during
the times of the Guptas the
punishments were made lighter.
Fa-Hien tells us that death penalty was
not imposed in northern India. Most of
the crimes were punished with fine.
Even in case of serious crimes like
revolts the amputation of one hand was
done.
Thank-You