Introduction

The duty to protect is cast on the king by dharma itself and therefore, administration of
justice is an imperative duty of the king under Hindu Law. The fundamental obligation
placed in kings according to Hindu theories is: to protect the people, to give them security of
life, property and to maintain social stability in order to enable virtue to flourish. According
to the Mahabharata, "protection is the cheese of all kingly duties", and all other duties are
subordinate to it. The Mahabharata again declares, “The happiness of the people, the
upholding of truth and maintenance of social order-these are the unchanging functions of
Rajadharma". Prajaparipalana, the protection of the subjects, is the supreme duty. The
purpose of what protection is that the people may not lapse into anarchy or matsyanyaya or
the fish analogy, where the stronger will eat the weaker as fish do in water. "Under the
protection of the king men being fearless can sleep with the doors of their houses open”.
These passages show that the maintenance of external and internal peace, the upholding of
social order, the creation of conditions under which people can live a free life-this is the
wider meaning that our thinkers have given to the word "protection". The maintenance of
justice and the punishment of offenders (dusta nigrata, sista paripalana) are the other aspects
of the problem of protection. It was the sacred duty of the king to punish the wrong doers; if
he neglected this work, he would go to hell. The Mahabharata emphasises that it is only by
coercive action, danda, that civilised life can exist at all. Danda becomes the ultimate
sanctions of the government. 
Jail and security were synonymous in old India with the term Dharma, which underwent a
few trans-developments of importance in its most extreme recognised centrality, but which
remained essentially the same throughout. Unlawful acts include burglary, theft, outrageous
overpricing and exploitation. In the evening, a steer's lifting transformed into something that
was remarkably normal. Lawbreaker is bound to a stake in a not uncommon state of
discipline. It was a difficult time for them because they had to deal with hearth and water
problems. As a result of this, it is possible to trace the evolution of the Vedic legal codes over
time.  the punishments imposed by the rulers of India for a period of time that was considered
to be very long. On the other hand, it's very energising to note that in India, justice has long
been hailed as the very embodiment of God himself, whose sole task is to uphold the same
principles of justice, certainty and exemplary nature. Various types of punishments were in
vogue during this time period. These included fines, imprisonment, banishment, mutilation
and the death penalty, among other punishments and penalties. The most common
punishment was the fine. While deciding on the punishment, the judges took into account the
nature of the crime, the motive of the accused, his age, and his social standing in order to
determine the appropriate punishment.

Brahmanas and Kshatriyas were usually given lighter punishments. A Kshatriya was
punished with 1,000 cows, a vaisya with 100, and a sudra or a woman with in. we will be
taking all this further in details.

Judicial Institutions
In ancient India, administration of justice was centralised. It always remained separate from
the executive and generally dependent in form and ever independent in spirit. The king was
the fountainhead of law, and dispensed with justice; he was his own executioner, striking
down condemned thieves. The growing and settled order of society made it impossible for the
king to carry out all functions of judiciary. With the hands of the experts. The king's court
was reserved for appeals and serious crimes against the state, the rest of the litigations being
entrust- ed to various other courts. Brihaspati speaks of four kinds of courts-
1) Pratisthita, court established in a fixed place such as a town
2) Apratisthita, circuit court
3) Mudrita , court presided over by a judge who is authorised to use the Royal seal
4) Sasita, court presided over by the king himself.
Narada speaks of various courts with different powers of jurisdiction like Kulani (village
councils), sreni (guided courts), Puga or Gana (assemblies). Reference occurs to such courts
as Janapada Sandhi, Sangrahna, Dronamukha and Sthaniya, which existed in the capital
towns of the several administrative districts. In the Sanchi stone inscription of Chandragupta-
II we come across the term panchamandali which resembles the modern panchayats. The
village court or grama panchayat was the judicial machinery of the lowest ladder. It may be
surmised that it must have been organised based on the sovereignty of the people.
The organisation of courts with different powers of jurisdiction was a feature of ancient
system of judiciary. Yet another feature was the preference to a Bench of Magistrates than to
a Single Judge. A story in the Jataka speaks of a Bench consisting of five magis ates.
Kautilya advises the king to establish a court with a bench of three magistrates for every ten
villages, with higher courts in the districts and provinces. Manu suggests a Bench composed
of the Pradvivaka (Chief Judge) and three other judges. The Constitution of the court
described in Mrichakatika consisted of Adhikaranika (chief judge), Sresthin (a wealthy
merchant) and Kayastha (a representative of the caste of scribes). The last two members were
the leading citizens who were appointed on the bench to serve on the bench "as do our
justices of peace". The court presided over by the king was the Supreme Court, the highest
court of appeal. Appeals lay from the lower to the higher courts. It appears more probable
that the regular courts came into being for the first time during the Mauryan period. For, the
note of urgency in the administration of justice that dominates Kautilya's chapters on the
subject is missing in the works before him.

Role of Village Panchayats

There were popular courts in the village called Village Panchayats, which were invested with
judicial powers. The village court presided over by gramavriddha. The popular village court
played a prominent part almost throughout the long course of Indian History.
The Agni Purana compares the administrative set-up of the village with the working of the
body organism. The five senses of the body are compared to five householders of the village
council. The soul is compared to the mahattara (chief) of the village. The head of the village
with the advice of the five councillors who strove for the successful working of the body
politic of the village. Bana makes a similar comparison between the panchendriyas (five
senses) of the body and the panchakuta the village.
The Village panchayats performed judicial functions. These popular courts settled disputes
among the inhabitants of the village. Governments in ancient India encouraged these popular
courts to
enforce their decisions. Though they were essentially non-official describes these village
courts as sanctioned by the king. The govern and popular, they had the royal authority behind
them. Yajnavalkya ment has been advised to execute their decrees because the State had
delegated these powers to them. The judicial procedure of these courts was similar to the
royal courts with some necessary modification. In civil matters, there was no limit to their
jurisdiction. They, however, did not deal with criminal cases of a serious nature.
Nevertheless, they disposed of cases like accidental homicide, suicide, etc. The Arthasastra
invests gramaviriddha with the power to punish thieves and adulterers? The Chola
inscriptions give a graphic description of the village assemblies, which were completely
autonomous and characterised by democratic principles.
 Initiation of the Procedures

Ordinarily procedure of accusation followed. A plaintiff first filed plaint before the
registration officer containing particulars of the claim, the year and the place, the nature of
the offence, etc. The officer of the court called Lekhaka or writer recorded it. The plaintiff
was at liberty to alter his plaint when it was defective and redundant till the defendant had
tendered his answer. When the judge found that the matter was legally entertainable, he
delivered a sealed order to the plaintiff or ordered the bailiff to summon the defendant.
Yajnavalkya makes provision for writing down the plaint when the plaintiff prefers the
complaint first and again in the presence of the dependent. In any discrepancy between the
two versions could prove fatal to the cause. “This provision is very important as the plaintiff
has to prove his case, first, prima facie, and the plaint on examination discloses defects then
the process to the case cannot be issued. Thus, great precaution is taken by Hindu jurist so
that an unscrupulous complaint may not harass the innocent people The smriti Aras says that
plaint which contained an imaginary grievance, disclosed no injury contained letters or words
making no coherent sense or contradictory statement, wanting in propriety and vague should
be rejected.
A clause in Yajnavalkya requires that a lawsuit between teacher and pupi husband and wife
and master and servant should not be entertained. In case of more than one complaint at the
same time. A rational Katyayana, on the other hand, recommends that priority should be
given to a plaint where the injury was greater or cause more important requiring immediate
attention. There is also a clause in the Dharma sastra permitting the plaintiff to prefer an
appeal to king to "put the accused under arrest (asedha) or restrain his free movements until
the summons had been issued." However, under special circumstances second summons were
allowed to be sent. The legally maintainable plaint was read and recorded in the presence of
the defendant. Then the defendant was asked by the judge to file his reply (uttara or vada),
The Dharma sastras require that in urgent and important cases, as also in criminal cases the
defendant had to file his reply immediately. According to Manu, 'in disputes relating to
sahasa, theft, abuse, assault, cows, charges of grave sins and women, the defendant has to
make his defence at once, and that in other cases time may be granted at the discretion of the
court. Adjournment ranged from one day to one year or more. Katyayana does not favour
adjournment, for, he feels, that it hampers the normal course of judicial procedure and creates
complications. But this facility is denied to the plaintiff.
What prompted the Hindu jurists to frame elaborate rules regarding the characteristics of a
good defence, the defects in justification for rejection of defence, the way in which the
defendant was to present his reply was to avoid injustice to the parties to the dispute. The
defendant's reply was required to meet all the points raised in the plaint without deviating
from truth, not to employ vague words, not to be self-contradictory and not be such as
needing further explanation. According to Brihaspati, the reply should be "in writing, should
exactly correspond to the contents of the plaint and should be clear, precise and should be
free from absurdity or ambiguity".
Replies of the defendant were generally of four types: Mithya (denial), Sampratipatti or Satya
(confession or admission), Karana Pratyavasakandana (a special plea of demurrer) and
Prannyaya or Purvanirnaya (reference to a previous verdict). In reply, the defence was not to
mix up any two or more of the types described above. Vyavahara Matrika quotes, however, a
text, Vradhasatatpa that admits reply partly of one type or another and adds two more to the
already mentioned four types, namely, samshista or their commentaries deal and illustrate at
length on the defects in reply which demonstrate how the procedural law was very advanced
and rules of pleadings were based on sound principles of jurisprudence, which compare
favourably with the modern principles of pleadings.

Investigation
Principle law of Ancient India

In a verifiable India, was there a standard of law? Writers should have a chance to speak for
themselves through their writings. According to the Mahabharata, "a king who, after
swearing to protect his subjects, fails to do so should be executed like a puppy."
"Those who do not protect them, who deny them their rights and benefits, and refuse to listen
to any proposal or direction from anyone, should be executed. Such a lord isn't usually a
ruler, incidentally, however."
Power was fundamentally founded on social conservatism, and the king relinquished his
authority for abuse of the customary percent. "In the bliss of his points lies the King's
satisfaction; in their welfare his welfare," writes Kautilya in the Arthshastra. "Something that
satisfies him he will now not remember as exact, however whether it satisfies his individuals
he will remember to precise."  Kautilya Principles grew to become primarily dependent on a
totally memorable culture that emerged in the age of the Ramayana. The trial in the course of
Rama's exile, his subjects resented that Rama had returned his wife to her abductor after she
had spent a year there. It made him very upset, but he gave in to the demands of the people.
An angler in the Mahabharata refused to marry his daughter to the King of Hastinapur unless
he agreed that his daughter's children and not the heir apparent from a previous ruler would
succeed to the position of authority. Bhishma Pratgyan, or lifelong abstinence, is one of the
most moving scenes in Mahabharata.  For legal advisers, its significance lies in the fact that
even the sovereign was found to be within the guidelines. King Hastinapur could not compel
the humblest of his subjects to marry him, despite tolerating their expressions. There is no
basis for believing that the lords of ancient India were "Oriental dictators" who did what they
pleased without regard to the law or the interests of their subjects.

The Trial
The trial of the case began with the submission of the reply, in writing, by the defendant. It
was now left to the judge, who had heard both the plaintiff and defendant to determine on
which of the party lies the responsibility of adducing the burden of proof. The Hindu jurists
laid down the rules regarding the burden of proof in a comprehensive manner. Generally, in
the event of denial the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, in cases of protest or special plea or
reference to former judgment the defendant had to commence the act of proving (kriya). In
the event of the evidence being equally strong with the parties to the dispute and only the
laws and customs being divided, Brihaspati recommends mutual reconciliation between the
concerned parties through royal order.
Yajnavalkya recommends that soon after the defendant's answer, the plaintiff should depose
as to the pratijnata and prove the case. The pratijna, according to Narada, "is the gist of law
suit. If he fails in it, the plaintiff loses his case, if he goes across it, he reaches his object".
Manu is of the view that "being asked, only when the defendant denies, the claimant shall
prove his case by at least three witnesses before the king and Brahmanas". These attest to "the
development of the adjective law" and show that "the administration of justice in ancient
India attracted the full attention of jurists". It was not a ready-made justice, but it was, in all
respects, justice according to law and in consonance with the principles of jurisprudence and
accepted social norms, and every point in the case was subjected to close scrutiny.
Mode of proof are divided into two classes, human and divine(Divyam). Human evidence
was of three types, documents (lekhya), possession (bhukti) and witnesses (saksi)., Divine
proof consisted of ordeals. Ordeals were resorted to only when "the ordinary method of
proof. was not feasible". In case of difference of opinion among the parties to the dispute, i.e.,
one preferring human evidence and the other divine, Katyayana requires the king to accept
the former. The ordinary procedure in trial was by evidence, while in extraordinary cases
recourse was taken to divine evidence."

The trial discloses certain weaknesses. In the first place, though Dharma sastras explicitly
prohibit the capital punishment for a Brahmana, this rule was not applied in the case of
Charudatta, a Brahmana. Secondly, according to Manu, the king or his officers could not
initiate litigation and only the affected could complain to the king. Even this prohibition was
not heeded, as Sakara was the brother-in-law of the king and was inimical to Charudatta. It
was he who initiated the case. The judge took up the trial to secure his own position which
was threatened. And finally, the judge refused Charudatta's prayer for trial by ordeal. It was a
command performance and demonstrates how it was not always safe to rely on circumstantial
evidence alone. Charudatta was saved by the physical appearance of Vasantasena. The trial
further shows that from the beginning to the end, the rules of the Dharmasastras were
observed only in breaches and the king or his officers could influence the judges.

The trial involved the examination of documents, title, possession and evidence tendered by
the witnesses. The Hindu jurists did not give any scope for ambiguity in respect of human
proof. They have defined what is a valid document, have classified them and brought out
their utmost utility. They were also aware of spurious documents and have not only severely
criticised this practise but have also prescribed punishment for such offences. Similarly, the
title of possession has come in for a detailed treatment. Title in respect of movable and
immovable property, legitimate proprietary right, the duration of occupation which entitles
right to possession have all been discussed with meticulous details. It must be admitted that
our lawgivers have ensured adequate protection in case of possession to avoid unnecessary
harassment. They have shown equal concern for minors, idiots and women, so that they were
not unduly cheated. They have not forgotten to preserve the right of a man who was not
present." The last of the human evidence was witnesses and our jurists have given an
elaborate list of those who were ineligible and eligible for deposition. 
 Punishments
The smritikaras have discussed at length the classification of crimes and the punishments to
be given. Manu prescribes admonition, reproof, a fine, corporal punishment and banishment.
Brahmanas were exempted from capital punishment, but in extreme cases, banishment was
recommended. varna considerations dominate in Manu in prescribing punishments. For
instance, if a Sudra even mentions the names and castes of the twice-born with contumely,
"an iron rail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth”. If he is arrogant enough
to teach Brahmanas their duties, "the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and
into his ears". In case of assaults, "with whatever limb a man of the lower caste injures a man
of three higher castes, even that limb shall be cut off". If a Brahmana killed a Sudra, it
amounted to killing a frog or a dog, a sin of which he could get rid of by mere penance.
Kautilya is in general agreement with Manu except in two respects. He brings in Brahmana
within the scope of capital punishment by providing him the death penalty by drowning if he
is guilty of high were merely fined. Since gambling was recognised by the state, they treason.
He is less severe on the lower castes. Ascetics and atheists were penalised only when they
played in places other than fixed by the state. The superintendent appointed for the purpose
laid down the regulations.
A severe type of imprisonment prescribed by Kautilya is forced labour in state mines, state
farms and such other concerns of the state If a person who is injured because of quarrel
within seven days of the occurrence, it was treated as murder and death penalty was inflicted.
For spreading false rumours, housebreaking and stealing war animals of the king (elephants
and horses) hanging was the penalty. "Any person who aims at the kingdom, who forces
entrance into the king's harem, who instigates wild tribes or enemies (against the king), or
who created disaffection in forts, country parts, or in the army, shall be burnt alive from head
to foot". One who murdered the father, mother, son, brother or an ascetic was burnt alive.
"Any woman who murders her husband, preceptor, or offspring, sets fire to another's
property, poisons a man or cuts off any of the bodily joints of another shall be torn off by
bulls, no matter whether or not she is big with a child, or has not passed a month after giving
birth to a child." The man who breaks the dam deliberately is to be drowned in the same dam.
Those who insult the king betray his council; make evil attempts against the king have their
tongues cut off. When a man other than a soldier stole weapons or armour, he must be shot to
death with arrows; if he was s soldier, he had to pay the highest amercement. Kautilya is
comparatively lenient towards the sexual crimes. After describing some of the many forms of
execution Kautilya says, "Such painful punishments as the above have been laid down in the
sastras of great sages; but it has been declared as just to put to simple death those offenders
who have not been cruel".
The criminal code in the Arthasastra is rather severe and it has been characterised as "an eye
for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. A person who insulted his father, mother, son, brother,
teacher or an ascetic had his tongue cut off; "if he bites any limb of these persons, he shall be
deprived of the corresponding limb”. Asoka tempered justice with kindness by introducing
many reforms in judicial administration and procedure. He enjoined on the mahamatras, the
city judiciaries, to avoid causeless imprisonment and harassment of the town people. In
addition, he ordered that a respite of three days was to be given to those condemned to death
so that his relatives might use the interval to petition for mercy to the local authorities or
enable the convicts to prepare spiritually for death by giving alms or observing fasts. 
Judicial torture was used to extort confessions, speaks of "four kinds of torture (Karma); six
punishments (shatdandah), seven kinds of whipping (kasa), two kinds of suspension from
above (upari nibandhan), and water tube (udakanalika cha)". The principle laid down was
"that those who were truly believed to be guilty shall be subjected to torture”.
In civil cases, the Hindu Law as embodied in the sastras was administered. Manu has also
dealt elaborately with civil law and has certain interesting observations to make on debt,
property, agreements, itance etc.
Kautilya shows a general repulsion against the savage punishments laid down in theory and
an attempt to modify them in practise. Manu thought punishment both retributive and
deterrent. Therefore, he wants the king "having fully ascertained and having due regard to the
motive, the place of occurrence, the ability of the offender to suffer the penalty, and nature of
the crime, should impose the penalty which the accused deserves. Let him (king) punish
(offenders) first by gentle admonition, afterwards by harsh rebuke, thirdly by fine and after
that by corporal punishment. Unjust punishment destroys reputation among men and fame
(after death), and causes even in the next world the loss of heaven; let him, therefore, beware
of inflicting it". In a word, ancient Indian jurisprudence was "much advanced in the field of
administration of justice". This advancement is particularly seen in the policy of regulating
punishments. The very theory of inflicting punishments to various categories of civil and
criminal offences brings out its high sense of justice.
 The Role of the Judges
If law was harsh in the case of the law-breakers, it was uncompromising in the case of those,
who administered it." The legal texts set a very high standard for judges. They were to be
learned, religious, devoid of anger, and as impartial as humanly possible. The Arthasastra
says that "Judges shall thus settle disputes free from all kinds of circumvention, with mind
unchanged in all moods or circumstances, pleasing and affable to all.” Kautilya discusses at
length the conduct of the judges and prescribes punishment for dereliction of duty. "When a
judge threatens, browbeats, sends out, or unjustly silences any one of the disputants in his
court, he shall first of all be punished with the first amercement. If he defames or abuses what
ought to be asked or asks what ought not to be asked, leaves out any one of them, the
punishment shall be doubled. If he does not ask what he himself has asked, or teaches,
reminds, or provides any one with previous statement, he shall be punished with the middle
most amercement". If the judge made inquiries into unnecessary but not necessary
circumstances, made unnecessary delay in discharging his duty, postponed work with spite,
caused parties to leave the court by tiring them with delay, evaded or caused to evade, helped
witness, gave them clues or resumed cases already disposed of, was to be punished with
highest amercement. In case he repeated the offence, he was punished with double the above
fine and dismissed. If a judge imposed an unjust corporal punishment, he was either
condemned to the same punishment or made to pay twice the amount of ransom leviable for
that kind of injustice. If a judge falsified whatever was a true amount or declared as true
whatever amount was false, he was fined eight times of that amount.
The judicial corruption is often referred to and to prevent bribery private interviews between
the judges and litigants until the cases were settled were prohibited. Kautilya was for testing
the loyalty of the judges periodically by secret agents. Vishnu smriti, on the other hand,
prescribes banishment and forfeiture of all property for a judge found guilty of corruption or
injustice. These regulations do point to corruption prevalent in the judiciary. The lawgivers
suggested necessary measures to control judiciary by bringing it within the ambit of the "Rule
of Law".
An ideal judge was to possess independence of character, great learning in various branches
of law and impartiality. He must be sagacious eloquent, and dispassionate. He was to
pronounce judgment only after due deliberation and enquiry. He was to be the guardian of the
weak, a terror to the wicked; his heart was to covet nothing, his mind was to be intent on
nothing but equity and truth and he was to keep also from the anger of the king
(Mricchakatika).

The judges were not above board. The Dasakumaracarita records the case of a judge,
accepting bribe. The trial of Charudatta as narrated in the Mricchakatika shows how the
judge, with a view to secure his position, acted contrary to law. Cases like these were few and
far between. By and large, the judges by their thorough knowledge of law and high character,
by their impartiality and dispassionate judgment were successful in maintaining the
independence of the judiciary from the
executive.
That the ancient Indians had a high sense of justice becomes evident
from the establishment of gradation of courts, from the village to the
capital of the State, the classification of courts into civil and criminal and the formation of
rules for judicial procedure, which consisted of four stages. The trial of the case depended on
the burden of proof, both human and divine, and when the human proofs failed, they took
recourse to ordeals, which were barbarous and horribly superstitious. The only saving grace
is that they were rarely employed and remained in the law books to serve as a deterrent. The
employment of spies or secret agents to detect crimes and to oversee the character of the
custodians of law is, indeed, a significant feature of the judicial administration in ancient
India. Similarly, in inflicting punishment they had to ascertain fully the motive, the time and
the place of the offence and take into consideration the nature of the crime as well as the
ability of the criminal to suffer, yet another marked feature of ancient judicial administration.
When law became complex in the course of its growth and could not be easily comprehended
by the parties to the dispute the lawgivers came up with the proviso of allowing litigants to
employ experts, who were entitled to a share of the money involved. P.V. Kane quotes a
source which grants to any learned Brahmana the right to give his views on a case from the
body of the court. Though it is doubtful whether they constituted a class of professional
pleaders. There is evidence to suggest that towards the end of ancient period, a class of
lawyers, in modern sense, was beginning to develop. In short, the ancient Indian State was
oblivious of its essential duty, dusta nigraha and sista paripalana. 
 Conclusion
It was a real eye opener for today's legislators and general public to learn about the ancient
wisdom of the Indians. Indians have been living under foreign rule for centuries, which has
stifled the ethnic, cultural and social awakening that took place in India in centuries past.
Agricultural Revolution, the first revolution in human history, was made possible by India's
well-developed legal system with a Judiciary firmly bound by the Dharma principle and the
pious nature of the Indian people who adhere to the rule of law. Resources and wealth were
plentiful on the Indian subcontinent, which attracted foreign invaders. Civilisations, in order
to reach this level of development, need to have a social system that promotes peaceful
living, which in turn requires a law-and-order system that is free of corruption and an active
judiciary. As can be seen from the discussion above, the ancient Indian judicial system met
all of the requirements for a stable and effective judiciary.