Verse 8.2

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

तत्रासीनः स्थितो वाऽपि पाणिमुद्यम्य दक्षिणम् ।
विनीतवेषाभरणः पश्येत् कार्याणि कार्यिणाम् ॥ २ ॥

tatrāsīnaḥ sthito vā'pi pāṇimudyamya dakṣiṇam |
vinītaveṣābharaṇaḥ paśyet kāryāṇi kāryiṇām || 2 ||

There, either seated or standing, raising his right hand, subdued in dress and ornaments, he shall look into the suits of the suitors.—(2)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Sealed’—sitting on the judgment-seat.

‘Standing’—not moving, nor seated.

‘Sitting’ and ‘standing’ constitute the only two possible alternatives, to be adopted in accordance with the gravity of the business. If the suit is an important one, and there is much to be said (by the parties), he shall he seated; whereas if the suit is a light one, and there is not much to be said, he shall remain standing. in either case, moving about is absolutely precluded. While moving, his attention would be fixed upon the path he is treading, so that he could not rightly grasp what is being said by the two parties.

Others have explained that the rule here laid down is with a view to some transcendental results; and that what is meant is that when the parties consist of ascetics or Brāhmaṇas, and these remain standing, the King also shall remain standing, but on their being seated, he also shall be sealed.

‘Raising his hand’—i.e., holding the hand high. This (if taken literally) would militate against what the Sūtra-kāras have said regarding the upper garment being always under the right arm. Hence all that the text means is that the hand shall he lifted up, and not allowed to be in contact with any other person near at hand. In fact, this is to be done only when the King is disallowing a certain question. This shows that he is alert and carefully watching the proceedings of the case. For as a rule, whenever a man is devoting great attention to any work, he holds his arms high. If, on the other hand, he sits at ease, the defeated party is likely to say—‘The King does not pay attention to the case, hence the members of the court, not fearing him, have decided the case against us.’

‘Hand’ here stands for the arm; otherwise if one were to keep the hand only lifted up throughout the proceedings, this would be extremely painful. Nor is the advice offered with a view to any transcendental purpose.

‘Subdued in dress and ornaments’—What was meant by ‘dignified demeanour’ in the preceding verse was that he should keep control over his external and internal organs in relation to their respective objects; and this was with a view to being easily accessible to even the most modest suitors. If he were too gaudy in his appearance, it would be difficult for the more modest suitors to retain their presence of mind.

It is for this reason that gaudy dress and ornaments should be avoided. ‘Dress’ stands for the making up of the hair and clothes; ‘ornaments’ for ‘Karṇikā’ (the lotus-shaped Ear-ornament) and the rest. So ‘gaudy dressing’ would consist in the wearing of richly-coloured clothes and so forth. If the King is gaudily dressed and wearing brightly be-jewelled ornaments, it could be as difficult to look at him as at the sun, for ordinary people, specially for the accused (who would thus lose their presence of mind during the trial).

‘Look into.’—This declares the purpose for which the King; is to enter the Court-room.

This teaching regarding the King himself ‘looking into’ the suits is with special reference to the inflicting of punishments; and applies to the entire investigation, ending with the full setting forth of the statements of both parties. And the intention is that by doing this he would be fulfilling his duty of ‘protecting’ the people. Such ‘looking into’ cases not being possible for other persons, no one else could be entitled to it. As for helping in the settling of doubtful points, this result of the investigation interests all persons; and as such like the rules relating to expiations, this also falls within the province of the learned Brāhmaṇa; specially as in connection with the latter it has been declared that ‘he shall speak out on difficult points of law.’ Similarly when a case is being investigated where the parties belong to the same profession,—such for instance as traders, cultivators, cattle-breeders, etc.,—if other persons belonging to the same profession And that the points in dispute are such as would affect them all, then they are all entitled to take part in the investigation.

In this connection they declare as follows (Nārada, 1.8)—‘(a) Families, (b) Guilds, (c) Tribes, (d) Authorised person, and (e) the King constitute the very foundation of case-proceedings; and among these the following is superior to the preceding.’

Of these,

(a) the term ‘families’ stands for the body of relations; the parties shall not deviate from the decision arrived at by these,

(b) If however one party should have no confidence in these, and should say—‘these persons are more nearly related to you,’—then the case shall he referred to the guilds,—this term ‘guild’ standing for a body of trailers and others who may he following the same profession; these persons are weightier than relatives; because the latter, through fear of relations, do not always exercise a check upon the person who deviates from the right path; while the members of a guild fight shy of any matter relating to themselves going before the King, as that would lend the King’s officers ah opportunity for interfering in the work of their guild; and hence they always take from the parties concerned sufficient security against their deviating from the decision arrived at, before they proceed to investigate a dispute; the understanding with the person standing security being that if the party deviate from the decision arrived at by the guild, he shall pay a stipulated line, or he should not let him deviate from it.

(c) ‘Tribes’—consist of persons who always move about in groups; e.g., masons, temple0priests, and so forth. They would investigate the cases of disputes arising among themselves; and for the enforcing of decisions they shall appoint committees. The difference between these two (‘Guilds’ and ‘Tribes’) is that the former consists of persons following the same profession and they can act singly also, whereas Tribes always act collectively. And it is because the Tribes act collectively that the disputants are afraid of them. According to others however, the term ‘Families’ stands for neutrals; and such persons, even though not members of the same guild, are conversant with all the ins and outs of the case, and as such capable of coming to a decision,

(d) The term ‘authorised person’ stands for the Brāhmaṇa learned in the Vedas; it has been laid down that such Brāhmaṇas are entitled to speak on all disputed points of law. Such a person is superior to the foregoing, because of his learning.

(e) The King’s superiority rests upon his great power. It is for this reason that when a case has been decided by the learned King, there is no occasion for what is laid down in the following words—‘If a party, even though legally defeated, thinks that he has not been justly defeated, he shall be fined twice the amount of the suit, and the case re-opened’ (Yājñavalkya, Vyavahāra, 306); this is what applies to other cases (decided by others), For in the case of these latter there may he some ground for asserting that ‘the judges have not decided rightly’; but when the King himself has decided it, what can he said against it?

Another explanation of the term ‘authorised person’ is that it stands for the Brāhmaṇa who has been appointed by the King to act as his substitute. Similarly the ordinary householder also would be an ‘authorised person,’ so far as his own household-affairs are concerned,—this being in accordance with the declaration that ‘the householder is master in his own house,’ which means that ho is free to deal with all disputes within his own household, up to the infliction of punishment,—specially with a view to proper discipline among his children and pupils; but he may deal with all cases, except the inflicting of bodily punishment, or the doing of acts conducive to depravity. What is meant is that in the case of minor offences the householder himself acts like the King, while in that of serious offences, it is necessary to report to the King.

From all this it follows that there is no basis for the doubt raised by some people regarding the right of the Brāhmaṇa and others to pronounce judgments,—on the ground that the injunction contained in the present verse that the King ‘shall look into the suits’ precludes all other persons,—or, for the great trouble that they have taken to establish that right. Because the right of the several persons pertains to different kinds of cases. The King’s right exteṇḍs up to the infliction of punishments, while that of the Brāhmaṇa and others extends only up to the pronouncing of judgments,—this latter right is distinct from the former. Then again, the motive of the King in looking into cases consists in the proper administration of his kingdom, while that of the others lies only in settling doubtful points for the benefit of other people. So that there is no possibility of cross-purposes arising.

The ‘suits of sailors’ consist in the settling of disputes. Whenever disputes arise between two persons, settlements should be brought about by the King by means of careful investigation. Otherwise if the parties come to an agreement themselves, where would he the supremacy of the King?—(2)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Raising his right arm’—See 4.58.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 600);—the second half in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 2);—in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 18) in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (p. 2a);—in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 52), which says that ‘seated or standing’ is meant to predude lying down and walking;—in Kṛtyakalpataru (3a), which has the following notes:—‘Vinīta’ is calm and dignified’—‘pāṇimudyamya’, taking the hand out of the upper wrapper, i.e., having gathered together his clothes,—‘paśyet’ determine, decide,—‘kāryāṇi,’ non-payment of debt and so forth;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, p. 40).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.1-2)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.1.