In ancient India none could be above the law of the land. Even the King and his relatives had to abide by the judgments delivered by the courts. Great advocates of sovereign power of the King like Kautilya, had also accepted this Principle.
Image Source: th09.deviantart.net
Impartiality in judicial proceedings was another important attribute of rule of law. In order to achieve this object it was provided in the Codes that the judgment should not be pronounced by a single judge, for, such a judgment is apt to be biased. Therefore, every attempt was made that even subordinate courts were constituted of benches having a plurality of judges. Not only this, secrecy before the law was also discarded.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Sukraniti prohibited proceedings ‘in camera’. According to the Arthshastra the judges were to be fined for exercising duress, ill-treating, restraining the freedom of speech or sending away a party. Katyayana went a step further and prescribed punishments for any judge who held secret deliberations with the parties to the suit.
Everyone whosoever was subjected to a wrong, had the fundamental right to resort to courts for obtaining justice—Yajnavalkya declared. “If oppressed by enemies, by acts transgressing the Smriti or Achara, one makes representation to the king or to his officers, which will become a subject matter of legal proceedings. The titles under which actions could be brought were numerous. Unlike the Roman law or English common law, as N.C. Sen Gupta has pointed out, the rigorous rules of ancient Hindu law were constantly tampered by an undercurrent of passion for eliciting truth and doing justice.
The ancient law permitted actions to be brought even in respect of apprehended wrongs (Sankabhiyoga). At the same time rules were made to check abuse or misuse of legal rights by prescribing periods of limitation, discouraging litigation as between certain relationships like parent and child, teacher and student etc. prohibiting actions of maintenance and champers penalising persons who used an unfounded courses etc.
The rules of law thus have been given paramount importance by orthodox Dharamshastras and comparatively heterodox Arthashastra. The excellency of the Rule of law can be credited to two principal factors; the remarkable development in the various branches of law relating to contracts, crimes, transfer of property, specific relief etc. and secondly; the well organised judiciary functioning in the land.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Law was regarded as a dynamic force in the society It was believed to feed the needs of time and to keep peace with growing complexes of society. It was flexible and was subject to changes, amendments, repeals conforming the requirements of an age. Parasara said, Law changes with time.
A law which is good today may not be necessarily so tomorrow. It will depend upon the need of a given age. In Kaliyuga the laws were different. In Treta and Dwapar they were different from Kaliyuga. In Kaliyuga they changed according to the needs of time. Law should be dynamic for its survival.