“Administration of Justice in Ancient India

with special reference to

Summary
These Ashramas were of four types Brahmacharya, Grahasth,

Vanprastha & Sanyas. Under Varna, social behaviour and under

Asharama, individual behaviour of a person was controlled. A man

can attain perfection by way of following the rules determined

under Varna & Ashramas. From this concept, Ancient Indian

Judicial Code was developed. This judicial code had its own legal

philosophy.

Buddha & Mahaveer opposed the traditional class system and

refused the concept of by birth superiority and inferiority. Buddha

Religion did not accept the duties as a matter of religion, which

was determined by the other classes. Moral aspect of the religion

was placed by Buddhas at top place, and by way of following it

Moksha can be attained.

1
 In Buddha Religion, the meaning of religion was substantial

and moral. Supremacy of Brahmins & Purohits, who were

protector and implementer of religious system, was on decline with

the emerging effect of Buddha Religion. With the Mauryan

dynasty, a powerful rule came into existence and the judicial

system was accepted in the centre of the state.

This was the age when real attempts were made to separate

the judicial principles from religious subjects and to make them

irreligious. During the age of Dharmashashtra, only those judicial

principles were accepted, which were mentioned in shashtra.

Kautilya firstly broke this trend and he empowered the King

to make law with the condition that such law should not be

arbitrary and adverse to the religion'. Inspite of being an autocrat

politician, Kautilya also had a democratic vision. Judicial System

given by Kautilya is purely a democratic system. Apparent duties

have been classified for every class and organ of the society

including businessmen, servants, labourers, owners, parents,

couples, sons, rulers.

2
 Strong provisions for character were also made'. Kautilya

also disregarded the though of Dharmashashtra, according to

which, Brahmins were treated to be inculpable and undefeatable.

Kautilya considered the religion as basic truth'. In Dharmashashtra

literature, Dharma describes civil and criminal law as well as social

behaviour in a limited manner, but in Kautilya's Arthashashtra,

Dharma represents a social truth & duty as well as a moral law

based upon civic rights'.

Credit goes to only Kautilya, who made the judicial system

an organ of state rule by way of getting it freed from the religious

parameters. Therefore, the contribution of Kautilya was

revolutionary and eschatological.

Kautilya had never claimed that he was launching a new or

basic, judicial or political principle. On the contrary, he states his

concepts to have based upon three Vedas. Kautilyan description of

Varnashramas Dharma equals to Dharmasutras and he also thinks

that he, who follows his religion, attains heaven and eternal bliss.

3
 He also quotes that in violation of the religion and

disintegration of the classes, the world gets exhausted. According

to Kautilya, the main duty of a King is that4should not let the

people subverted of the religion. In condition of disintegration of

class system, it is the duty of a King that he should re-establish the

collapsed system and make it veda justified'.

In this sense, Kautilya terms a King as promoter of religion.

Besides this, the vision of Kautilya is also liberal and hardy from

the religious point of view. He advises that a King should not only

respect the religious rituals and tradition, gods and festivals of the

conquered area, but also implement the important Brahmin Social

system principles accepting their rituals'.

Kautilya also considers that it is essential for a state to exist

for peace and order in the society. Position of justice in a state

without rules remains like Matsyanyay, in which the powerful

exploits the weak. In the ancient era, with a view to get rid of this

anomaly, the public chose Manu as its King and decided to pay 6th

4
part of their production and 10th part of their commercial income

to him.

In lieu of that the King accepted the duty of safety of his

kingdom'. Kautilya quotes four bases of the law Charit (Riti),

Vyavhar (Karar), Dharma (system of law) & Raj Shasan (Rule of

state). From amongst them, every subsequent base is of more

importance than its predecessor'.

In this way, he treats the state as supreme in the rule of law.

But he also considers that in a rule of state, state should be placed

at top place, but in this situation, the state must be religiously

justified'. Although, instead of Brahmins he empowers King for the

purpose of interpretation of the Dharmashashtra and law.

Kautilya has given much importance to integrity and fidelity

of officers, judges and ministers towards the King. His objective

behind this must have been the thought that on requirement, they

could be able to maintain the interest of the state by way of

neglecting the religious concepts.

5
 In economics, signals are also reflected that during Mauryan

Empire, even the religious institutions were also under the control

of state. From the post like Devtadhyaksh, it appears that his duty

was to utilize the property of temples etc. for the use of state.

To establish a judicial rule was one of the most important

duties of the King. Irkar Institutions of law and state were

developed so that a powerful may not violate the rights of the

weak. Law was proof of authority of state. According to Shatpath

Brahmin, Law is the king of Kings. It is more powerful and

stronger the King. No one is more powerful than it.

The power of law makes even a weaker person stronger than

a powerful person. It is the duty of a King that he must conduct the

judicial administration in accordance with the written law as well

as local tradition. Inspite of this, a King was not above the law and

the law was accepted as disciplinary power of the state. Justice was

also among the duties of the King during Vedic age.

Provision of punishment was there for implementation of

justice. In Mahabharata, law has been considered to be the base of

6
state and therefore, it is essential for a king to implement the law. It

is a self duty for a king that he must protect moral system of the

society and defend it from the evil. Mahabharata instructs a King

that he must punish the offenders. If he fails to do so, he shall go to

the hell'.

Mahabharata has enunciated the penal law as a science of

state, because with the help of penal system, the society can be

kept at the path of truth'. A King has been empowered to give

punishment. Implementation of penal law is done by a King for

public safety, so that his kingdom could attain the goal of Trivarga

(Triclass), Varna & Ashramas could be defended and the public

could not go on the path of Adharma. Kautilya also views the penal

law as an art of conduction of rule.

Apart from the organization of state and its activities, it also

included the civil and criminal laws. According to Kautilya, the

scope of punishment is much comprehensive. He states that

Punishment is a means through which Anveekshika, Trayi and

Varta are established and defended and it describes the penal laws.

7
 Penal Laws are instruments through which Alavdh can be

attained and Lavdh can be protected, protected can be aggrandized

and aggrandized can be divided among eligible. Kautilya had

established two types of courts Religious Courts & Kantakshodhan

Court. Religious Courts related with the cases arising out of dispute

between two persons, but Kantakshodhan Courts related with the

cases arising out of disputed between the state and a citizen.

Jurisdiction of violation of edict and conduct against the law

was under these courts. Kantakshodhan Courts can be classified as

equal to the modern Civil and Criminal Courts. Under economics,

judicial administration has been given a complete and perfect

structure.

Kautilya had considered that and efficient and sensitive

judicial system is a preliminary need of a welfare state. Justice

must be feasible and easily available for every citizen. Kautilya

wanted a practical solution for all the problems. Therefore, he

established such a judicial system, which can be supported by

police and detectives.

8
 Three Dharmastha & Amatya functioned as Judges and in

this way; the King had least role in justice delivery system.

Although, it was a duty for the King that he should observe as to

whether the judicial procedure is being implemented properly or

not and also whether the justice is easily available for all or not?

Kautilya emphasized on positive aspect of the law and

attempted to improve its traditional form as more feasible.

Kautiliya is not religiously illiberal. Although, he emphasizes that

vedic religion must be followed and inspite of this, his penal

provisions for the persons out of reach of vedic religion such as

Buddha, Jain & foreigners, are not so harassing.

They are liable to be punished only in condition of

commission of offences like theft, beating and kidnapping etc. by

them. In this way, for the first time, Kautilya was attempted to

define the law on the basis equality for all. In Indian perspective,

Kautilya secures an important place in the sense that in his book, at

several places, religious views have been ignored for the purpose

of fulfillment of state policies.

9
 In this view, he created Rajyavyavastha Shashtra and took a

firstever serious attempt in order to make it free from the effect of

religion and its preaching. But the society in which he lived, was

mainly based on religion, therefore, he remained unable to free the

state from the religious views completely.

Justice & its concepts in the eyes of Smritikars-

The way in which Kautilya was an imaginary and

acknowledgement of his age, similarly, Ancient age concepts given

therein were also affected by the contemporary era. In the earlier

chapter, we have determined the period of creation of ancient age.

It is a universally accepted fact that inspite of claims of its

antiquity, Ancient age was compiled after creation of

Dharmasutras, Mahabharat & Arthashashtra somewhere between

2nd Century B.C. to 4th or 5th Century A.D.

Among all the Smritis, Manusmriti or Manavdharmashashtra

is the oldest. And Yagyavalkya Smriti was compiled subsequently.

Both of these Smritis were compiled during Shunga Era.

10
Subsequent Smritis like Narad, Katyayan & Brahaspati were

compiled during Gupta Age.

Character and conduct of rulers of both the ancient age had

an essential impact upon the Smritis and the principles enunciated

in them were emerged. Inspite of being created in different eras,

basic tract of Ancient age Literature and tradition is Manu Smriti

and subsequent Ancient age had also termed it as a proof thereof.

Therefore, firstly, we will attempt to investigate Manu Smriti

for the purpose of understanding the concept of justice. Founder of

Shunga Dynasty namely Pushyamitra Shunga was a Brahmin, who

by way of killing the Last Mauryan Emperor Brandrath, acquired

the whole kingdom. Writer of Mahabhashya namely Patanjali was

mentor of Pushyamitra, who was also a promoter of Brahmin

Religion.

Pushyamitra pledged for re-establishment of Brahmin

Religion, which was based upon the class system. He not only

tortured the irreligious person, but also attempted to eradicate

them. Re-establishment of Class System and supremacy of the

11
King is the fundamental concept of Manu Smriti, and herein, the

religion has again been reputed as basic element of justice.

All the Smritikars term the word Dharma in the sense of

justice. The basic Law, object of justice is protection and

implementation of Dharma. Dharma is the justice and Adharma is

injustice. Ancient age has developed upon this concept. Smritis

provide, a comprehensive picture of justice.

In the introduction of Narad Smriti, the topics of

Dharmashashtra mentioned by Prajapati Manu also included

creation of the world, classification of its creatures, their land, rules

of judicial assembly, right time of study of Vedas & vedang, rules

of sacrifice, traditional rituals, judicial system, punishments for

criminals, state duties, duties of four classes, distribution of four

Ashramas, rules of marriage, relations between husband and wife,

succession, obituary, rules of refining, eatables and uneatables,

classification of offences, penal system etc.

According to Ancient age, Dharma is such a set of rules

emerged from Vedas, Smritis and tradition, whose compliance is

12
necessary and due to its following, one can attain, Dharma, Artha,

Kaam & Moksha. Its violation is Adharma, and no adverse

contention can be given in support thereof°. Manu has stated Veda,

Smritis, Good Conduct and happiness of heart to be four characters

of Dharma.

He describes five degrees of the Dharma Varnadharma,

Ashramadharma, Varnashramadharma, Gounddharma &

Naimitikdharma. In Smritis, the meaning of Dharma and justice is

not the same, but the concept, which on one side joints base of

Dharma and on the other side supports justice, is essentially the

same.

Therefore, they can be considered complementary for each

other in order to achieve an ideal. It can be said that law and justice

is implementation and impact of Dharma in a given condition. Both

these factors are apparently different.

Both of them can be understood more conveniently with the

fact that each one of them was decider for the other. Mutual

relation of Dharma and justice is like Wirupya Nirupakbhav'

13
Dharma was a system of rules for social conduct and in this way it

was base of justice and determining element of judicial traditions

and procedure.

Defining the justice, Manu says that a destroyed Dharma only

destroys and a safe Dharma only protects, therefore, Dharma must

not be destroyed. Dharma is like an ox and likewise, Dharmahanta

is like a Matador.

The concept of judicial system of Smriti period is originated

from the concept of Dharma. Smritikars propound certain codes of

conduct for human, society and state, which must be followed in

every direction. In this way, we confront such a version of Dharma,

which is not only legal.

It is moral and social as well. Legal philosophy is not merely

a separate stream, but it is a part of social science, wherein, totality

of human relations has been co-ordinated. Smritikars have not

separated the socio-legal aspect of human life from moral-spiritual

aspect and the concept of justice is merely a means to attain the

final goal of human life.

14
 In social perspective, justice is such a tool, which makes

social harmony, cohesion and competition free development

possible. Concept of Justice given by Smritikars was actually a

development of attitude and assumptions of the then society

towards life and its different aspects, and accordingly.

These judicial codes are a co-ordination of social, moral and

spiritual values. In comparison to Kautilya, Manu & Yagyavalkya

give more importance to Dharma, and like Kautilya, they are not

irreligious judicial scholars. Subsequent Smritikars must have

made the state important, but in the Manu & Yagyavalkya Smriti,

the ruling King is not as important and powerful as a Brahmin

governing Dharma.

The Dharma is a system of social, moral and spiritual rules,

whose goal is to attain justice. It is Manu's order that the system of

state must be Tathanyayam. For implementation of justice,

Smritikars provide for punishments. Punishment has been termed

as tool of Dharma'. Smritikars have termed Dharma as such a stuff.

15
 It not only a means of overall development of an individual,

but also it is a path of equilibrium and development of the society.

Dharma makes an individual perfect. Besides it, Dharma makes the

society perfect also.

We have earlier discussed that Dharma was basically a

development of concept of Krit. Vedic Sages had founded Krit as

the most powerful and supreme rule or law of the whole universes.

Smritikars have termed that ancient era as Golden Period of moral

system, when the human was so pure and refined from within that

the mythological laws, rule and judicial system was not required at

that time.

But gradually, the humans began to undergo downfall and

with a view to control and govern him, need of state rule and

judicial system was felt essential. Narad says that Judicial system

has been established for protection of humans and law is a means

of it.

When human race was pure and refined, the vices like

struggle, hatred and ego did not exist. But when good conduct of

16
humans began to reduce, judicial system was established and the

King was empowered with a special right as a Judge to punish the

Brahaspati also agreed with that'.

Manu says that in Satyuga, Dharma existed with its full

degree, but with the subsequent eras in Treta, Dwapar & Kaliyuga,

it undergone downfall. Dharma is corroded as per the era

Yughrasanurupatale.

According to Brahaspati, Asceticism (Tap) was primary duty

during Satyuga, and likewise, Knowledge (Gyan) in Tretayuga,

Sacrifice (Tyag) in Dwaparyuga and Daan (gift), Daya (kindness)

& Damah were primary duties for humans in Kaliyuga. According

to Brahaspati, Truth, Knowledge, Patience and Gift are modes of

Dharma. Dharma (duties) is a source of pleasure and

enlightenment.

Through enlightenment, an individual becomes free from the

cycle of life & death and attains Moksha. Smritikars consider

performance of duties is an essential ingredient of Dharma. In the

17
society, every person must follow his duties and in any condition,

he must not deviate from it.

It is different provisions of Class and Varnashramas are based

upon this conscience. Only such systems can maintain social

cohesion. As a Judge, it is the duty of a King that he ensures

implementation of these systems. According to Brahaspati,

performance of duty is the basic ingredient of purity (Shouch) for a

person'.

It is fear and favour must not intercept the path of duties.

There is no comparison between the ancient class system and the

polluted and addled caste system of present India. Actually, birth

of castes is a much later phenomenon. These castes and sub-castes

as well as exploitation and harassment relating to them did not

exist in Ancient India.

Therefore, class system of Ancient India must not be

compared with the current caste system. When Aryas arrived India,

they were distinguished into only three classes on the basis of their

18
work Purohit, Yoddha and Karigar. In this tri-class system, every

class regarded with a particular social work, culture and life style.

When the attacking Aryas and local residents of India had a

collision between them, apart from the cultural differences, it also

gave rise to differences of work culture also. At that time a new

class in the form of Shudra emerged and our society became a

four-class society'.

The ancient Aryas had observed the class system as

composite social system, which was classified on the basis of their

business. But it was not a rigid system. Interchange of a class was

possible on the basis of work. In India, we find a caste unequal to

the class of Ancient India.

A caste has always been based upon a particular class. In

India, every person is free to create his Brahma. Brahma is an ideal

of mankind. If we have a study of Indian History, we find that

attempts have ever been made for advancement of lower class.

19