Hierarchy of courts in Ancient India Sources-Sruti, Smriti and Customs According to Brihaspati Smiriti, there was a hierarchy of courts in Ancient India beginning with the family Courts and ending with the King. The lowest was the family arbitrator. The next higher court was that of the judge; the next of the Chief Justice who was called Praadivivaka, or adhyaksha; and at the top was the King’s court. The jurisdiction of each was determined by the importance of tHe dispute, the minor disputes being decided by the lowest court and the most important by the king. The decision of each higher Court super; Onan of the court below. :The unit of society was the joint family which might consist of four generations. Consequently, the number of the member of a joint family at any given time could be very large and it was necessary to settle their disputes with firmness combined with sympathy and tact. It was also desirable that disputes should be decided in the first instance by an arbitrator within the family.The significance of the family courts is that the judicial system had its roots in the social system which explains its success. End of the Vedic period saw organisation of GUILDS-FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. They had their own rules and regulations called SRENIDHARMA-was binding on the members-which were recognised by DHARMASASTRAS. KULA,SREN! &PUGA are 3 popular courts mentioned by YAJNAVLKYA for first time. aThe fountain source of justice was the sovereign. In Indian jurisprudence dispensing justice and awarding punishment was one of the primary attributes of sovereignty. Being the fountain source of justice, in the beginning the king was expected to administer justice in person, but strictly according to law, and under the guidance of judges learned in law. Avery strict code of judicial conduct was prescribed for the king. He was required to decide cases in open trial and in the court-room, and his dress and demeanour were to be such as not to overawe the litigants. He was required to take the oath of impartiality, and decide cases without bias or attachment.PANCHYATS Decided cases of villages Kautilya says it was presided over by GRAMAVRIDDHA. MAHATTARA -chief of the village There was no limit to their jurisdiction in CIVIL matters & CRIMINAL cases of serious nature were not dealt by them. OPROCEDURE Complaint was recorded by LEKHAKA OR WRITER. Replies of the defendant were of 4 types+ r MITHYA-denial SATYA OR SAMPRATIPATTI-confession or admission KARNA PRATYAVASAKANDANA-a special plea PRANNYAYA OR PURVANIRNAYA-reference to a previous verdict. © INDIANTRIAL It began with submission of reply in writting by the defendant. Jurists were responsible for providing justice. Mode of proof is divided into two- 1) HUMAN 2)DIVINE(divyam) Human evidence was of three types- 1)DOCUMENTS-lekhya 2)POSSESSION-bhukti 3)WITNESSES-sakshi Divine evidence only in case of difference of opinion where as ordinary procedure was by evidence. Divine proof consisted of ordeals was accepted only when ordinarfmemhely method of proof was not feasible.WITNESSES 2 TYPES- a) APPOINTED b)UNAPPOINTED Appointed witness are divided into 5 types 1) SUBSCRIBING WITNESS 2)ONE WHO HAS BEEN REMINDED 3)A CASUAL WITNESS 4)A SECRET WITNESS 5)INDIRECT WITNESS Manu considers 2 brahmins as sufficient witness. Jurists have no unanimity of opinion regarding the number of witnesses-some say nine some say two is sufficient. King, actors,students nor ascetic could be made witness. No provision for cross examination of witnesses-ancient legal literature. QnPLEADERS The number of figures of pleaders is not given by JURISTS. NIYOGINS were appointed by those who were unale to attend the case personally. Whether the lawyers existed in ancient times it is difficult to say. SECRET AGENTS Spies were employed to detect the criminals Kautilya has mentioned about them in ARTHASHASTRA. I VERDICT(NIRNAYA) KING was the chief judge. Verdict was given by the king or the chief judge after arriving at unanimous decision. JAYAPATRA was the document of victory given to the party who [NCA the suit.