The Judges of the High Court were transferred from one place to another. This attracted the attention of the public from different angles. The transfers were effected, according to the authorities, to maintain the highest standards of the judiciary and improve its efficiency. Others questioned this stand and imputed motive. Even one of the judges expressed his disappointment over the transfers. In this connection, an ancient lithic (epigraphic) record dated over one thousand years ago, regarding the limitation of service tenure of the Judges, would come as a revelation to those interested in the history of Ancient Indian Judiciary.
The record is dated 930 CE, in the reign of the Cōḻa King Parāntaka, and is found on a ceiling slab of the Bhaktavatsala temple of Tiruniṉṟavūr near Madras, Tamiḻnāṭu. It is engraved in Tamiḻ letters and relates to the constitution of the Judiciary and the limitation of their service.
Before the inscription is studied, it is necessary to note that the Cōḻa emperors, aimed at superlative efficiency in all walks of public administration and did achieve splendid standards, which even modern administrators would envy. The famous Uttaramērūr inscription, relating to the qualifications, dis-qualifications, and process of election to the village assembly is an instant, well-known. Two important records from Tamiḻnāṭu, give a vivid picture of the constitution of judiciary in ancient times. One is the 8th century record that comes from the Pāṇḍyā country and the other 10th century record, from a place near Madras, as mentioned above.
The judiciary was by and large in the hands of elected village elders, and only in exceptional cases went to the territorial assemblies or ultimately to the King’s council. The village courts served as the main backbone of the judicial system in ancient India. Called the Pañchāyat system in modern times, the village judiciary is mostly misunderstood, as the collective decision of the elders, without the application of any legal procedures known to present times. Most historians held that the legal-judicial system came to be introduced and learned only after the advent of European rule in India. The 8th century record from Pāṇḍyaṉ country disproves this assumption emphatically. This record comes from Mānūr, in Tirunelvēli district, and is virtually a written constitution of the Village Judiciary regarding the election of judges to the village court. The entire village assembly met and drafted the constitution for electing Judges.
The first qualification prescribed was that a person to be elected as a judge should be a master of at least one legal treatise. The legal treatises are known as Dharma-śāstra and there were many schools of Dharma-śāstra such as the Manu, Yājñavalkya, Brhaspati, Parāsara and others. The one who was to be elected as a Judge should be a master of at least one Dharma-śāstra, which means that the village courts were presided over by legal experts and not by casual elders, as is commonly understood. There were strict legal procedures to be adopted before any case was taken to the village court.
The Mānūr record also specifies that the person to be elected to the court should be one, known for his sterling conduct (suvṛttarāy iruppār). The village assembly should accept the person to be of good conduct to be elected. Since this village was a Brahmin settlement, it further prescribed that a person to be elected should be a master of one Veda and one Brāhmaṇā text. It is not mere knowledge, but he should have appeared for an examination in one Veda and one Brāhmaṇā and passed the test. There are other aspects mentioned in the record with which we are not concerned here. Thus, the above record, stipulates virtuous conduct, a pass in the stipulated examination, and mastery of one law book as basic requirements for being elected to the court. This record does not, however, stipulate the duration for which he can serve or if he has served once the interval that was required for re-election.
This gap is filled up by the Tiruniṉṟavūr record of 10th century mentioned earlier. It mainly addresses itself to the interval that is absolutely essential to serve in the same court. The Tiruniṉṟavūr record is also a written constitution of the village judiciary drafted by the entire Village Assembly which met for the purpose in 929 CE is clear that the village judiciary and administrative committees were elected to serve for one duration.
Once the elected judges have served the one-year duration, they should not be elected for another five years to serve as judges, Not only as judges but also in other administrative committees, they could not get any place. The restriction of the five-year interval was reduced to two years in the case of relatives such as fathers, brothers, or sons of those who had served once.
It was thus made obligatory on the part of the judges not to serve in the same court for five years, once he has served in the court. His close relatives could not also aspire to become Judges within two years of his service.
It is pertinent to recall the qualification stipulated for a Judge of the village court as a pass in the prescribed exam/nation, mastery of the legal text, and above all noble conduct. The Dharma-śāstra insist on the sanctity of judicial pronouncement, failing which, the judge is not only liable for punishment but also would incur a sin and his emancipation was in danger. In spite of such strict standards, like upright judgments, good conduct, and high qualifications, his tenure was limited, and he could not serve in the same court for five years.
This would indicate the height to which the standards of judicial administration was taken in the Cōḻa period in the 10th and 11th cent., C.E
Whether this system could be applied in modern times is not the concern here. The standards are different now. But, it does focus attention on the history of an ancient Indian Judiciary, often labelled Pañcāyat system which is brushed aside as a collective conventional decision, rather than based on a written constitution and legal system. The ancient Indian Judiciary functioned only with due legal procedures and a written constitution (called lekhya pramāṇam) In view of the importance of Tiruniṉṟavūr constitution, the English rendering of the record is given below.
This is the resolution passed for the prosperity of our village, with effect from the month of Kumbha in the 23rd year, by us the members of the great assembly, which include
the Judicial Assembly,
the Tank maintenance committee (ēri vāriya perumakkaḷ).
the Garden maintenance committee (tōṭṭa vāriya perumakkaḷ),
the exponents of Śastras (bhaṭṭas) and
the great men (visiṣṭha perumakkaḷ).
and who assembled in full, inclusive of the young and the old, in the great hall of our village on this day:
When the Judicial Assembly and the (various) committees are to be constituted from this year onwards, the great assembly (mahāsabhā) should assemble in full in the brahmasthāna of our village, and select only those who are acceptable to the mahāsabha. Those who are so selected should not have served in the judicial capacity or in the (administrative) committees within five years prior (to the date of election),
The brothers, fathers, and sons of those who served (within) two years prior (to the date of selection), should be excluded.
One who is so elected, should not be demanded to do (other) obligatory services, while serving in the mahāsabha.
Those who demand other obligatory services from such selected persons, contrary to this resolution, are proclaimed offenders of the village.
They (the selected) will receive one kuṉṟi of gold per duration.
Those who complete their service, in the Judicial Assembly, and the (other) committees, should, settle and hand over accounts to the assembly.
We the members of the great assembly resolved thus.
Those who act contrary to this resolution should pay twenty five Kaḻañcu of gold as fine at the court (dharmāsana) at the request of the shareholders ofśravaṇai of our village.
This resolution (may be) inscribed on stone.
Tiruvaḷḷuvar Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭkkaḷ, Tamil Nadu Department of Archaeology, 2011.
