Chapter 4.3 - Special Adjudicatory Machinery

Another interesting aspect of Yājñavalkya’s administration of justice is the presence of other recognised agencies to decide disputes besides the king’s court. These agencies are categorized under the following heads, viz. the kulas, the śreṇīs, the pūgas and the judges appointed by the king and each succeeding one having a higher authority in vyavahāra then the preceding one.^[1] Vijñāneśvara explains the composition of these agencies. According to him, kula means the union or group of family, relatives, both agnates and cognates, and friends. Śreṇī is the corporation of men doing same profession, who may belong to different castes, e.g. horse traders, betel-leaf sellers, weavers, etc. Pūga denotes the assembly of people, inhabitant of or residing in same place, i.e. either town or village, who may follow various avocations and may belong to different castes. The word nṛpenādhikṛtāḥ in the present context of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti, is interpreted as king’s appointee judges i.e. the prāḍvivāka or other sabhyas as distinguished from pūga, śreṇī, etc. ^[2] Aparārka describes kula as husbandmen.^[3] Viśvarūpa refers pūga to be the assembly of Brāhmaṇa, etc.^[4] The interpretation of the words kula and śreṇī provided by Medhātithi resembles that of the Mitākṣarā. Kula is said to be the group of family and friends, and śreṇī indicates guild of persons, exercising same callings such as association of merchants, etc. Medhātithi mentions gaṇa instead of the word pūga given by Yājñavalkya, which is seen as body of builders of houses and mansions, or Brāhmaṇas residing in maṭhas.^[5]

Yājñavalkya marks a hierarchy among the bodies called kula, śreṇī, pūga, where śreṇīs enjoy a higher position to the kulas, and the pūgas having a superior authority to the śreṇīs. Viśvarūpa holds that the king’s position is the highest of all in matters of vyavahāra. The king’s court stands at the apex of this structure.^[6] Moreover, Viśvarūpa^[7] and Vijñāneśvara have expressed their view that in the list of Yajñavalkya, each succeeding forum works as an appellate court to the preceding one in respect of matters heard by the lower authority. The Mitākṣarā lays down that in a lawsuit decided by king’s officers, if the defeated party is not satisfied and thinks the decision to be given illegally or wrong way, the case cannot be taken to supervise again in pūga and other forums. Likewise, a case decided by pūga cannot be approached at śreṇī and from śreṇī to kula. On the other hand, the case decided by kula can be carried to śreṇī, from śreṇī, recourse may be taken to pūga, and from pūga the members of king’s court can be resorted to.^[8] Aparārka also comments that if there is any fear of partiality or miscarriage of justice in a case decided by the kula then the same can be examined by the śreṇī. In this way, the case settled by śreṇī is liable to be examined by the pūga, and that of the pūga by the king’s judicial officers, but it cannot be reviewed from the opposite direction.^[9] Medhātithi thinks that there is hardly any relation of jurisdiction among these groups, which corresponds to appeal as understood in general.^[10] The text of Nārada supports the enumeration of Yājñavalkya regarding these bodies and their order of superiority and competence. Nārada says that the case decided by king’s appointee judges can be brought before the king himself as a court of ultimate resort. Thus, according to Nārada, the power to decide the cases is bestowed upon kula, śreṇī,gaṇa, the judge appointed by the king and the king himself, and among them, the following one is superior to those that precede in order.^[11] Nārada uses the word gaṇa in place of pūga as found in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti. It is also distinctly put by Bṛhaspati that the sabhyas are invested with a higher authority to the kulas and the rest, the chief justice having a place above them and the king is superior to all.^[12]

It may be observed that Yājñavalkya has not presented only a simple form of judiciary with the king being the sole judge, and in his absence, a Brāhmaṇa prāḍvivāka presiding over the court like the Manusmṛti. Manu has not mentioned specifically about the existence of the above referred bodies of kula, śreṇī, pūga, etc., in the administration of justice as an authority to decide or settle the disputes of people. Rather, the king is required to know or inquire into the laws of jāti(caste), of jānapada(district), of śreṇī(guild) and of kula(family), and thus, settle the peculiar law of each.^[13]

These bodies of kula, śreṇī, pūga seem to have been the customary courts, i.e. indigenous systems of delivering justice in the society of that time, which are recognised by Yājñavalkya and later Smṛti writers like Nārada, Bṛhaspati, Kātyāyana, etc., to subject them to the authority of the king. Perhaps, they were neither constituted by the king nor derived their power or authority by virtue of delegation from the king, but were inherent to the origin of the bodies themselves. These systems may have been existed among people as a part of regular administration of justice, for which they can be termed as people’s tribunal.^[14] J. Jolly visualizes the similarity of these three stages of private arbitration with the modern panchayats of India.^[15] The function and power of these agencies as judicial organ are not better known. However, it can be presumed that they acted as an arbitrator or tribunal between their members and tried to settle the disputes, while, in case of failure to get an arrangement, the parties have the right to move to the court of the king.^[16] The reason of appreciating and encouraging these institutions appear to be logical, as the members of a guild or village community generally have more reliable knowledge of the facts in dispute, because the parties belong to their guild or locality.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

nṛpenādhikṛtāḥ pūgāḥ śreṇayo’tha kulāni ca/ pūrvaṃ pūrvaṃ guru jñeyaṃ vyavahāravidhou nṛṇām// Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.30

[2]:

nṛpeṇa rājñā adhikṛtāḥ vyavahāradarśane niyuktāḥ-‘rājñā sabhasadaḥ kāryāḥ’ ityādinoktāḥ pūgāḥ/ samūhāḥ bhinnajātīnāṃ bhinnabṛttīnāṃ ekasthānanivāsināṃ yathā grāmanagarādayaḥ/ śreṇayo nānājātīnāmekajātīyakarmopajīvināṃ saṃghātāḥ/ … kulāni jñātisaṃbandhibandhūnāṃ samuhāḥ/ Mitākṣarā,Ibid.

[3]:

pūgāḥ samūhāḥ, ekaśilpopajīvīnaḥ śreṇayaḥ, kulāni kṛṣīvalāḥ/ Aparārka,Ibid.,2.30

[4]:

brāhmaṇādisamūhāḥ pūgāḥ/ Bālakrīḍā,Ibid.,2.31

[5]:

tatra ‘kulāni’ bandhujanasamūhaḥ/… śreṇayaḥ’ samānavyavahārajīvino vaṇikprabhṛtayaḥ/ … ‘gaṇā’ gaṇaśaścāriṇo gṛhaprāsādādikarā maṭhabrāhmaṇādayaśca/ Medhātithi on Manusmṛti,8.2

[6]:

nṛpo hi balavān vyavahāraṃ kārayituṃ samartha iti vyavahāravidhau sa eva jyāyān/ itare’pi sāmarthyāpekṣayā durbalā balīyāṃsaśca bhavanti/ Bālakrīḍā on Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.31

[7]:

ataśca kulādikrameṇaiva vyavahārānāṃ rājagāmitā draṣtavyā/ Ibid.

[8]:

nṛpādhikṛtairnirṇīte vyavahāre parājitasya yadyapyasaṃtoṣaḥ kudṛṣtibudhyā bhavati tathāpi naḥ pūgādiṣu punarvyavahāro bhavati… kulanirṇīte tu śreṇyayādigamanaṃ bhavati/ śreṇinirṇīte pūgādigamanam/pūganirṇīte nṛpādhikṛtagamaṇaṃ bhavatīti/ Mitākṣarā,Ibid., 2.30

[9]:

tena kuladṛṣte vyavahāre kuladṛṣtatvaśaṅkāyāṃ śrenyā parīkṣaṇaṃ yuktam/ śreṇidṛṣte pūgaiḥ pūgadṛṣte nṛpādhikṛtairna tu viparītakṛtam/ Aparārka, Ibid.,2.30

[10]:

Medhātithi on Manusmṛti,8.2

[11]:

kulāni śreṇayaścaiva gaṇāścādhikṛto nṛpaḥ/ pratiṣṭhā vyavahārāṇāṃ gurvebhyastuttarottaram// Nāradasmṛti,1.7

[12]:

cf., MaxMuller, F.(Edited), The Sacred Books of The East, Volume33, page282

[13]:

jātijānapadāndharmān śreṇīdharmāṃśca dharmavit/ samīkṣya kuladharmāṃśca svadharmaṃ pratipādayet// Manusmṛti,8.41

[14]:

Vide, Mayne, J.D., Op.cit., page10

[15]:

Vide, Max Müller, F.(Edited), Op.cit., Volume33, page6, Foot Note 7

[16]:

Lingat, R., Op.cit., page248