Skip to document
Welcome to StudocuSign in to access the best study resources
Guest user
0followers
HomeMy LibraryAsk AI
  • You don't have any recent items yet.
My Library
  • You don't have any courses yet.
  • You don't have any books yet.
  • You don't have any Studylists yet.

Administration OF Justice

As part of the government's obligation to protect its citizens, the go...
Course

Ancient India (HSB654)

254 Documents
Students shared 254 documents in this course
Academic year: 2021/2022
Uploaded by:
Anonymous Student
This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
Aligarh Muslim University

Recommended for you

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Students also viewed

Related documents

Preview text

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

As part of the government's obligation to protect its citizens, the government had to administer justice. Yajnavalkya (I) and Manu (V-2) agreed that while the king should preside over the law courts, he should not be the only judge. Consequently, wise Brahmanas and seasoned advisors should assist a king. He believes that when the monarch is absent from his duties, an accomplished Brahmana ought to take his place and three sabhyati should accompany him in his duties, in accordance with Manu's advice. Yajnavalkya and Narada also include this provision, though they do not limit the number of sabhyas. According to Manu (VIII) and Yajnavalkya (I), justice is equal to performing a sacrifice capable of obtaining the highest spiritual benefits. Brihaspati uses this formula repeatedly and isn't afraid to refer to a legal case (vyavahara) as a self-sacrificing one (yajna). The king, then, should follow the rules of the text as if he were performing a sacrifice. Like a sacrificer, he is bound by the rules of the sastras. While this may be the case, the king must always be on the lookout for the truth and avoid making hasty judgments. Furthermore, no legal rule can be applied until he has a thorough understanding of the subject matter. "A judgement should not be passed on the text of the sastras alone, because a trial without taking into account the circumstances of the case leads to the loss of Dharm," says Brihaspati. "

There were four types of courts of justice: 1) fixed, 2) moving, and3) sasi or sasrita. The king himself presided over sasi and the other three. 2) fixed, 3) moving, and4) sasi or the other three. The king himself presided over fixed, and3) sasi or the other three. 2) fixed, 3) moving, and4) sasi/the other three. When it comes to matters of justice and protecting his people, kings are held to be the ultimate judges in their kingdoms. Smriti writers would be a good source of advice and guidance for him. The judicial system included a number of other tribunals in addition to these. Narada (I), Brihaspati (I) and Yajnavalkya (I) declare that law suits can be decided by the kula, Sreni (I), the Royal Judges (I), and King (I) in order of precedence. All cases other than those involving sahasa must be decided by kula (families) and other srenis (associations of merchants and craftsmen), ganas (groups of artisans dependent on mutual aid) / pugas (association of people from various caste and occupations living in the same place) that have been authorised by the King. The Mitakshara states that one can appeal to a sreni from the kula's decision and to a puga from the sreni's decision. Vijnanesvara, the author of Mitakshara, cites Narada as his source of authority in this passage.

For Brihaspati (I) and Yajnavalkya there are four feet of a law suit, namely: the plaint (bhasa- pad), the response to that pleads (uttara pad), the evidence or proof (kriya-pada), and the final decision ( nirnaya pada). For corrupt judges, Kautilya imposes fines and even corporal punishment. Associate judges who are corrupt are punished harshly by Yajnavalkya, Narada and Katyayana. Smriti authors provide detailed instructions on how to go through the courts. According to the general smriti rule, the plaintiff is the person who first files a lawsuit in court. At any time prior to the defendant's filing of an answer, a plaint may be amended. In order to prevent the defendant from evading the summons of the king, Narada grants the plaintiff the right to keep the defendant under legal restraint in four different ways, including arrest before judgement or a temporary injunction. Following the plaintiff's claim, the defendant must respond. Four types of responses are permitted by Narada, namely, denial, confession, special pleas and appeals from previous judgments. Due to certain circumstances, the defendant was given a limited amount of

time to respond to the complaint, despite the fact that he was expected to do so immediately. Evidence had to be presented to the judge after the statements of both parties were recorded. There were two types of proofs: human and divine. Witnesses and documents were used in the former, while ordeals were used in the latter. Only when all other options have failed should one resort to the use of ordeals, according to all of the smritis. 'A witness prevails over inference, a writing (document) prevails over witnesses, undisturbed possession for three generations prevails over both,' Brihaspati explains in these words.

Parties were finally asked to leave the courtroom so that a jury could deliberate on the evidence after it had been presented. One side received a victory certificate known as a jayapatra, while the other side was to be punished by the king in accordance with an ancient Hindu text. There was a difference between the king's seal and the chief judge's seal. Jayapatra is considered a summary of the complaint, response, evidence, and decision by Mitakshara. The document was referred to as a hinapatra when the plaintiff was unsuccessful.

Was this document helpful?

Administration OF Justice

Course: Ancient India (HSB654)

254 Documents
Students shared 254 documents in this course

University: Aligarh Muslim University

Was this document helpful?
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
As part of the government's obligation to protect its citizens, the government had to administer
justice. Yajnavalkya (I.1) and Manu (V.1-2) agreed that while the king should preside over the law
courts, he should not be the only judge. Consequently, wise Brahmanas and seasoned advisors
should assist a king. He believes that when the monarch is absent from his duties, an
accomplished Brahmana ought to take his place and three sabhyati should accompany him in his
duties, in accordance with Manu's advice. Yajnavalkya and Narada also include this provision,
though they do not limit the number of sabhyas. According to Manu (VIII.306) and Yajnavalkya
(I.359), justice is equal to performing a sacrifice capable of obtaining the highest spiritual benefits.
Brihaspati uses this formula repeatedly and isn't afraid to refer to a legal case (vyavahara) as a
self-sacrificing one (yajna). The king, then, should follow the rules of the text as if he were
performing a sacrifice. Like a sacrificer, he is bound by the rules of the sastras. While this may be
the case, the king must always be on the lookout for the truth and avoid making hasty judgments.
Furthermore, no legal rule can be applied until he has a thorough understanding of the subject
matter. "A judgement should not be passed on the text of the sastras alone, because a trial
without taking into account the circumstances of the case leads to the loss of Dharm," says
Brihaspati. "
There were four types of courts of justice: 1) fixed, 2) moving, and3) sasi or sasrita. The king
himself presided over sasi and the other three. 2) fixed, 3) moving, and4) sasi or the other three.
The king himself presided over fixed, and3) sasi or the other three. 2) fixed, 3) moving, and4)
sasi/the other three. When it comes to matters of justice and protecting his people, kings are
held to be the ultimate judges in their kingdoms. Smriti writers would be a good source of advice
and guidance for him. The judicial system included a number of other tribunals in addition to
these. Narada (I.7), Brihaspati (I.92) and Yajnavalkya (I.30) declare that law suits can be decided
by the kula, Sreni (I.92), the Royal Judges (I.94), and King (I.7) in order of precedence. All cases
other than those involving sahasa must be decided by kula (families) and other srenis
(associations of merchants and craftsmen), ganas (groups of artisans dependent on mutual aid) /
pugas (association of people from various caste and occupations living in the same place) that
have been authorised by the King. The Mitakshara states that one can appeal to a sreni from the
kula's decision and to a puga from the sreni's decision. Vijnanesvara, the author of Mitakshara,
cites Narada as his source of authority in this passage.
For Brihaspati (I.17) and Yajnavalkya there are four feet of a law suit, namely: the plaint (bhasa-
pad), the response to that pleads (uttara pad), the evidence or proof (kriya-pada), and the final
decision ( nirnaya pada). For corrupt judges, Kautilya imposes fines and even corporal
punishment. Associate judges who are corrupt are punished harshly by Yajnavalkya, Narada and
Katyayana.
Smriti authors provide detailed instructions on how to go through the courts. According to the
general smriti rule, the plaintiff is the person who first files a lawsuit in court. At any time prior to
the defendant's filing of an answer, a plaint may be amended. In order to prevent the defendant
from evading the summons of the king, Narada grants the plaintiff the right to keep the
defendant under legal restraint in four different ways, including arrest before judgement or a
temporary injunction. Following the plaintiff's claim, the defendant must respond. Four types of
responses are permitted by Narada, namely, denial, confession, special pleas and appeals from
previous judgments. Due to certain circumstances, the defendant was given a limited amount of

Students also viewed

Related documents