Basic overview of Ideas Manu, Kautilya and other Indic thinkers on Role of a king in administration of justice

Profile of the author: Tanishk Jandial is a 2nd year law student from Dogra Law College, University of Jammu

INTRODUCTION

The system of justice in ancient Hindu period maybe described with reference to the developments in the following four periods, namely, (1) the Vedic period,

(2) the Sruti period,

(3) the Smriti period and

(4) the Post Smriti period.

The Vedic period comes down to about the sixth & seventh century; the Sruti period comes down to about third & fourth century period. The Smriti period extends to the fourth & fifth century A.D.; the post-Smriti period is represented by commentaries and Nibandha Granths.

EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS IN HINDU PERIOD

The early ancient Indian life was oral. The villages were autonomous institutions. The people were composed of tribes (JANAS). The territory, in which a group of villages possessing a common tie was situated, came to be known as Janapada which corresponded to a district of the present day.

Elderly persons with mature worldly experience in different matters and having leisure at their disposal, were constituted into assemblies which discharged the social, political and judicial institutional functions and were known by different names.

The Vedic period is known for the emergence of the three institutions of Parishad, Samiti and Sabha. The villagers, traders and guilds had their own judicial systems which composed of their own men and the presiding officer held his office by election or inheritance to customs. Such courts settled the disputes in case of crimes. When the party refused to obey the judgments of the local courts, the king gave the final verdict of the case. The State through the king assumed the responsibility of performing judicial functions in certain matters.

JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE KING IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

The State performed its duty of protection of society and the individual through coercive enforcement of the standards of justice based on the concept of ‘DHARMA’. From the Vedic period onwards, the perennial attitude of Indian culture had been justice and righteousness. Men experienced justice, in the sense of a distributive equity, as moral, social, and legal justice. Impartial administrations of justice was always regarded as one of the main duties of the king and he was considered to be the fountain of justice.

The ethical code of a society and its cultural standards were inter-related. The cultural maturity and social amicability and even their deterioration were reflected in the law and order of the society. With this view in mind observations of Manu and Kautilya, as found in their respective works have been evaluated.

Both these scholars lived almost in the same period and belonged to the same caste (BRAHMANA) and hence, it is very interesting to analyse their observations, especially on law and order, and administration of justice. The relevance of their code of conduct is very much important.

In the early Vedic times justice was determined by the tribe and clan assemblies, and the judicial procedure was very simple. But with the extension of the functions of the State and the growth of the royal powers, the King gained prominence in the area of justice, and a more or less elaborate system of judicial administration came into existence.

The exact period of Manu is not determined yet, but certain references related to Manu could be seen even in Vedic texts and in Mahabharata. It is generally accepted that Manu lived in between second century B.C. and second century A.D. On the other hand, Kautilya was referred to respectfully by the scholars of sixth century A.D..

MANU’S CONCEPT OF JUSTICE (MANUSMRITI)

Manu was the first Hindu Political Philosopher who laid the foundation of India’s political tradition in the Ancient India. Manu was not only the first king but also the first philosopher to codify the law and create a new Hindu social and Political order. His masterwork ‘MANUSMRITI’ is the most influential work which still determines the social and political orientations of many Indians.

In one of his theory “Saptanga Theory of the State”, Manu has described 7 elements, namely:

1. SWAMIN (King or Ruler): It is the most important limb of the state. King is the sovereign ruler of the kingdom. He is created by the different blessings of Gods like Indra, Yam, Fire, Sun, Water, and Air. He is the person responsible to protect the social order. He is a symbol of justice.
2. .AMATYA (Mantris or Council of Ministers): Manu advised his king to be careful in the formation of council of ministers because such ministers constitute the government. The king should appoint 7 or 8 carefully examined ministers who are learned, brave, and skilled in the use of weapon. The king should discuss with ministers the matters of peace and war, conditions of the kingdom, wealth, protection of the territory, etc.
3. JANAPADA (Territory): The king should have permanent territory. The territory must have predominance of Brahmans. If it is dominated by the Shudras there is every chance that the kingdom would suffer from famines and diseases.
4. PURA (Capital City): For the safety of the king, Manu suggested for a town fortified by desert or water or even trees or by armed men or by mountains. The king should live in such a town that is well protected..
5. KOSHA (Treasury): Kosha is the treasury of the kingdom. The king should appoint pure men to take charge of kosha which involves both the income and expenditure of the kingdom, collection of revenue, location of mines, especially gold mines, etc..
6. BALA (Army): The king should appoint a strong enemy to protect himself from the external attacks.
7. MITRA (Ally or Friend): The king should create friends for his own safety either than going for acquiring land or money. Those allies who are weak today may be strong tomorrow.

KAUTILYA’S CONCEPT OF JUSTICE (ARTHASHASTRA)

Kautilya was an Indian Political philosopher, teacher, economist and royal advisor of Chandra Gupta Maurya (322-298 B.C.). Kautilya was the author of “Arthshastra”. The Arthshastra is an ancient Indian treatise on statecraft, economic policy, diplomacy. It was perhaps the most significant product of the ancient Indian Political thought.

Kautilya mentions that it is the essential duty of the Government to maintain order. Arthshastra, thus, contains both the civil as well as criminal law. According to Kautilya, ‘the ultimate source of all law is dharma’. Kautilya’s emphasis on duties of king in maintaining law and order in the society is so much that he writes in Arthshastra, “because the King is the guardian of right conduct of this world with four ‘varnas’ and four ‘ashrams’ he can enact and promulgate laws when all traditional codes of conduct perish".

The King was looked upon as an embodiment of virtue, a protector of dharma. He too was governed by his dharma as any other citizen was. A king who administers justice in accordance with dharma, evidence, customs and written law will be able to conquer the whole world. Kautilya maintained that King’s law was to be in accordance with the injunctions of the three Vedas wherein the four ‘varnas’ and ‘ashrams’ are defined.

Kautilya did not view law to be an expression of the free will of the people. Thus, sovereignty, the authority to make laws, did not vest with citizens. Laws were derived from four sources- dharma (sacred law), vyavhara (evidence), charita (history and custom), and rajasasana (edicts of the king). Kautilya prescribes that any matter of dispute shall be judged according to four bases of justice.

Kautilya has given a detailed and full account of the law which was an improvement over his predecessors. The distinction between civil law and penal law first made by kautilya was one of his important contributions to the theory and practice of law.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the King’s Court was the highest court of appeal as well as an original court in cases of vital importance to the state. In the King’s Court the king was advised by learned people like Learned Brahmins, the Ministers, and the Chief Justice.

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.

FAQ:

Q1. What is the difference between Kautilya concept of justice and Manu’s concept of justice?

Ans. The major difference between is that Manu attached great importance to the sacred character of the laws, consistent with the rational outlook adopted by him, whereas, Kautilya laid stress on the sacred laws only.

REFERENCES

1. ‘King and ministries in Vedic period’ https://tamilandvedas.com/2013/05/27/king-and-8-ministries-in-vedic-period/ accessed on 26 June 2020
2. http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/event/TheIndianJudicialSystem_SSDhavan.html accessed on 26 June 2020
3. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.youthkiawaaz.com/2011/12/arthshastra-an-insight-in-kautilyan-views-on-law-and-justice/amp/ accessed on 26 June 2020
4. https://philosophy.redzambala.com/religious-philosophy/manu-smriti-and-kautilya.html accessed on 26 June 2020