“धर्मार्थौ यत्र न स्यातां क्रोधलोभवशाद्धि यः।
स विज्ञेयः सदा न्याय्यः शेषास्तु व्यभिचारिणः॥”
Dharmārthau yatra na syātāṃ krodhalobhavaśāddhi yaḥ।
Sa vijñeyaḥ sadā nyāyyaḥ śeṣāstu vyabhicāriṇaḥ॥
“He who is not swayed by anger or greed and upholds Dharma and Artha is always to be regarded as just; others deviate from justice.”
“This verse underscores the critical qualities of a judge or decision-maker, highlighting that true justice is administered by those who remain unaffected by personal emotions like anger and greed, thereby ensuring adherence to righteousness (Dharma) and proper conduct (Artha)”
The notion that the British introduced a judicial system to Bharat is a colonial myth. Long before their arrival, Bharat had a well-structured, highly advanced legal framework rooted in Dharma, fairness, and swift justice. The Smritis and Dharmashastras codified legal principles that ensured efficiency, moral accountability, and societal harmony—far superior to the British system, which was imposed to serve imperial interests. While the British courts prioritised bureaucratic control and prolonged litigation, Bharat’s judicial system emphasised truth, accessibility, and swift resolution. It is time to reclaim and recognise Bharat’s legal heritage as not just ancient but profoundly more just and advanced than the colonial framework that replaced it.
In ancient Bharat, Smritis were not just legal texts; they were the foundation of Raj Dharma—the sacred duty of a king to uphold justice, governance, and righteousness. Unlike the colonial legal system, which prioritised state control and economic exploitation, the Bharatiya legal framework was deeply intertwined with ethical governance and moral responsibility.
The Smritis, including the Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, and Katyayana Smriti, provided comprehensive guidelines on judicial administration, defining the king as the supreme authority responsible for justice. The king was not an arbitrary ruler but a custodian of Dharma, bound by the principles of fairness (Nyaya), truth (Satya), and duty (Kartavya).
The Katyayana Smriti explicitly states
“राजा तु धर्मसंरक्षी प्रजानां दण्डधारकः।
निस्पृहः सत्यसंधश्च सर्वान्क्षेमं विचारयेत्।।”
“The king is the protector of Dharma, the upholder of justice for his people. Free from bias, steadfast in truth, he must ensure the welfare of all.”
This principle ensured that justice was not a tool of oppression but a means of safeguarding societal order and individual rights. The judiciary functioned independently, and legal disputes were resolved based on truth, witness testimony, and documentary evidence, ensuring accountability.
In contrast, the British legal system in India was designed to maintain colonial dominance, prioritise state power over individual rights, and prolong litigation for economic gain. The replacement of Raj Dharma with foreign laws stripped Bharat of its indigenous, people-centric legal traditions.
Reclaiming and understanding Smriti-based Raj Dharma is crucial, as it represents a legal system that was not only advanced but also deeply aligned with justice, morality, and societal welfare—far superior to the exploitative colonial framework imposed upon Bharat.
The widespread belief that Bharat’s judicial system was a colonial imposition is a historical distortion. Long before the advent of British rule, Bharat had a meticulously structured legal framework, deeply rooted in its indigenous texts – the Dharmashastras, Smritis, and legal treatises authored by ancient jurists. These texts governed not only civil and criminal matters but also administrative and commercial disputes with remarkable precision.
Far from being arbitrary or rudimentary, Bharat’s legal traditions embodied principles of justice, procedural fairness, and codified jurisprudence. Mahamahopadhyay Dr. Pandurang Vaman Kane (1880–1972), in his monumental five-volume work “History of Dharmashastra”, extensively documented the evolution of Bharat’s legal traditions. A distinguished scholar of Sanskrit and jurisprudence, he was awarded the Bharat Ratna in 1963 for his scholarly contributions. The works of eminent scholars Mahamahopadhyay Dr. Pandurang Vaman Kane, who meticulously documented this system in his History of Dharmashastra, and Mahesh Kumar Sharan, who highlighted its potential influence on Roman law, reinforce the fact that ancient Bharat possessed an evolved and autonomous judicial structure.
This legal tradition, sustained through texts such as the Katyayana Smriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti, demonstrates a continuity of legal thought that shaped governance and social order for centuries. Unlike the colonial legal system, which was imposed upon an existing polity, Bharat’s ancient legal system was inherently organic, deeply integrated with its cultural and philosophical ethos.
The Evolution of Bharat’s Judicial System
Codification and Legal Texts
The Katyayana Smriti, attributed to Sage Katyayana, forms one of the foundational texts of Bharat’s jurisprudence. It draws upon the wisdom of illustrious jurists such as Devala, Pitamaha, Prajapati, Vasishta, Manu, and Brihaspati. The comprehensiveness of this legal treatise astounded scholars like Dr. P. V. Kane, who noted its striking parallels with modern legal principles, particularly in areas of contract law, procedural justice, and res judicata (finality of judgments).
Similarly, the Yajnavalkya Smriti, composed over 2,500 years ago, systematically codified laws governing property rights, contractual obligations, inheritance, and criminal offences. Its tripartite division—Acharakanda (ethical conduct), Vyavaharakanda (legal matters), and Prayaschittakanda (expiation)—formed the cornerstone of legal adjudication across ancient Bharat.
Judicial Infrastructure and Court Hierarchy
The judicial institutions of ancient Bharat were neither arbitrary nor ad hoc but functioned within a well-defined hierarchy. The Katyayana Smriti provides a clear definition of a court:
धर्मशास्त्र विचारेण मूलसार विवेचनम्।
यत्राधिक्रियते स्थाने, धर्माधिकरणम् हितत्।। (Katyayana Smriti 52)
“A court is a place where legal disputes are examined in light of sacred law, and justice is dispensed based on truth.”
These courts, presided over by learned judges, operated at multiple levels—from village councils (Gramadhikarana) to higher appellate courts (Sabha and Samiti), culminating in the king’s court (Rajadhikarana). Each level followed rigorous legal procedures that ensured justice was not dictated by personal whims but rather by established jurisprudential principles.
Legal Procedure and Evidentiary Standards
Judicial Inquiry and Due Process
The Katyayana Smriti lays down a structured method of judicial inquiry, emphasising due process:
काले कार्यार्थिनं पृच्छेत प्रणतं पुरतः स्थितं।
किं कार्यं का च ते पीडा मा भैषी ब्रूहि मानव।। (Katyayana Smriti 86)
“At the appropriate time, the judge must ask the plaintiff, who stands humbly before him: ‘What is your grievance? What harm have you suffered? Speak without fear.’”
Further, judicial officers were required to ensure a thorough fact-finding process
केन कस्मिन्कदा कस्मात्पृच्छे देवं सभागतः।
एवं पृष्टः स यद्ब्रूयात्तत्सभ्यैर्ब्राह्मणैः सह।। (Katyayana Smriti 87)
“Who is responsible? Where, when, and why did the incident occur? The judge, in consultation with learned members, must deliberate on these aspects before arriving at a decision.”
These procedural safeguards ensured that trials were conducted with fairness, upholding principles that closely resemble modern legal doctrines of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and natural justice.
Evidentiary Standards and Witness Testimony
The evidentiary system in ancient Bharat was robust, relying on direct testimony and documentary proof.
साक्षिणस्तु वदेद्राज्ञो यथान्यायं विशेषतः।
यथा सर्वे समाम्नायं स्वधर्मं ब्रुवते सदा।। (Yajnavalkya Smriti 2.84)
“The king must ensure that witnesses testify truthfully and impartially, always adhering to their duty and sacred law.”
To deter perjury, stringent punishments were prescribed
यो हि साक्ष्यं न दद्यात स विट प्रायश्चित्तमाह।
सहस्रं वा शतानि वा दण्डः कार्यः पृथग्जनैः।। (Katyayana Smriti 112)
“One who refuses to give testimony shall be heavily fined, either a thousand or a hundred coins, as determined by judicial authorities.”
Doctrine of Res Judicata: Finality of Decisions
Ancient Bharat’s legal system recognized the need for judicial finality. The principle of res judicata was articulated in the Katyayana Smriti
सिद्धं तु न पुनः कार्यं न च शास्त्रेषु निर्दिष्टम्।
पुनर्विचार एवैव विवादो धर्मदूषकः।। (Katyayana Smriti 150)
“A case that has been properly adjudicated cannot be reopened, as it is not sanctioned by sacred law. Reconsidering a settled dispute undermines justice.”
This doctrine prevented frivolous litigation and reinforced the authority of judicial pronouncements—an essential feature of any mature legal system.
Contrary to the misconception that Bharat’s legal traditions were primitive or nonexistent before colonial rule, historical evidence firmly establishes that Bharat had an advanced and highly codified legal system. The Katyayana Smriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti stand as testaments to an era when law was not merely a tool of governance but a refined system of justice, developed over millennia.
The Yajnavalkya Smriti and Legal Codification
The Yajnavalkya Smriti, dating back over 2,500 years, played a crucial role in codifying Bharat’s legal traditions. Divided into three major sections, it covered
1. Acharakanda (Ethical Conduct) – Discussing personal duties, marriage, purity, charity, and state policies.
2. Vyavaharakanda (Legal Matters) – Encompassing property law, contracts, wages, defamation, and civil disputes.
3. Prayaschittakanda (Expiation) – Covering emergency laws, renunciation, and atonement.
The Katyayana Smriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti addressed a wide array of legal issues, including
1. Judicial hierarchy and court structures
2. Legal documentation and contracts
3. Trial procedures and burden of proof
4. Sworn testimonies and evidentiary standards
5. Disputes concerning business and partnerships
6. Inheritance and gift laws
7. Breach of contract and penalties
8. Property transactions and ownership rights
9. Customary law enforcement
10. Statutory limitations on disputes
11. Defamation and freedom of speech
12. Punishments and rehabilitative justice
13. Legal safeguards against arbitrary rulings
Until British legal codes were enforced, Indian courts relied extensively on the Yajnavalkya Smriti for legal precedents.
Dr. P. V. Kane’s scholarship confirms that Bharat’s ancient legal doctrines, covering procedural law, evidentiary standards, and judicial hierarchy, were strikingly similar to contemporary jurisprudence. The principles of res judicata, due process, and evidentiary scrutiny, which are pillars of modern legal systems, find their roots in Bharat’s legal heritage.
The imposition of British law did not introduce the concept of justice to Bharat; rather, it disrupted an indigenous legal tradition that had thrived for centuries. Recognising and reviving Bharat’s legal heritage is not merely an academic endeavour but a necessary step toward acknowledging the intellectual and juridical achievements of a civilisation that pioneered legal thought long before the West codified its first statutes.
This rich legacy of jurisprudence should serve as an inspiration for contemporary legal reforms, reaffirming that Bharat’s legal consciousness was not only ancient but profoundly advanced, embodying principles of fairness, equity, and justice that remain relevant today.
The principles of Katyayana Smriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, and other ancient texts were not arbitrary but meticulously crafted to ensure fairness, efficiency, and moral integrity.
Today, as Bharat reclaims its cultural and intellectual heritage, the time has come to re-evaluate and integrate these timeless legal principles into our modern judicial system. A justice system rooted in Dharma rather than mere legality will ensure a more equitable, efficient, and morally sound society. The resurgence of Smriti-based legal thought is not just a historical revival but a necessity for a truly just and self-reliant Bharat.
Comments