The Ancient Legal System And Modern Laws

Law as a matter of religious perception develops in the history of India. Different Vedas speak about the ancient philosophy of Indian laws.

Law in India varied from religion to religion and from emperor to emperor. The Vedas, which are also called Shruti (“what is heard”), are revealed texts. Like other revealed texts, the Vedas contain many rules of positive law. It is believed that the Rishis or sages of immemorial antiquity heard them and transmitted them to the next generation.

There is another class of scripture known as the Smriti, which means tradition or “what is remembered.” Smritis are different from Shrutis as they are not direct perceptions of divine precepts but are indirect perceptions founded on memory.

India has witnessed legal history from its Vedic period. It is believed that India had some kind of legal system during the Bronze Age. From 300 A.D. to 1192 A.D., India is said to have been the world’s most developed country; its GDP was equivalent to 25% of the world’s GDP, followed by China with 15%. This tremendous development would have been impossible without a sound justice-dispensing system.

To find which legal system was the most effective and had the highest satisfaction, we should conduct an impartial study of both the ancient legal system and the present situation.

India has one of the oldest and most efficient judicial systems in the world. However, many writers in scriptures and history have given different views, some even criticizing it as being full of absurdities. Hon’ble Justice S. S. Dhavan of the Allahabad High Court stated that the legal system in ancient India was much better and more mature, and even impartial English historians themselves admitted its superiority. In contrast, others, either in ignorance or with the intention to defy Indian culture, created a false impression of the social conditions of pre-British India.

The word Dharma is derived from “dhr,” meaning to uphold, sustain, or nourish. Dharma signified behaviors considered to be in accord with Rta, the order that makes life and the universe possible, and included duties, rights, laws, conduct, virtues, and the “right way of living.”

Dharma was a unique blend of rigidity and flexibility. It protected eternal principles while accepting valid traditions. Shrutis stood for universal, eternal, and fundamental principles, while Smritis stood for values derived from these principles, expressed in the relative and temporary field of social life.

“We know that, in our books, a clear distinction is made between two sets of truths. One set abides forever, being built on the nature of man, the nature of the soul, the soul’s relation to God, and so on. The other set comprises the minor laws, which guide the working of our everyday life… The customs of one age, of one Yuga, have not been the customs of another, and as Yugas change, they too will change.” — Swami Vivekananda

Ancient Indian law set one of the highest standards of antiquity in terms of ability, learning, integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary. Judges were independent and subject only to law.

The Rule of Law can also be traced to the Vedas, which state that law is supreme, or “law is the king of kings.” The rule of law was more powerful than the king. There was nothing higher than law. The people were even instructed to depose a king who failed to protect them, deprived them of their property, or refused to take advice. Such a king was seen as a misfortune, not a ruler. By the supremacy of law, the weak could prevail over the strong and justice would win.

At higher levels, in towns and districts, courts were presided over by government officers under the authority of the king. The link between the village assembly and official administration was the village headman.

From being an artifice of colonial masters, the Indian legal system has evolved into an essential part of the world’s largest democracy and a crucial instrument in securing constitutional rights for every citizen.

The present legal system remains highly influenced by the British, and there are multiple reasons why it may not be entirely suitable for India:

1. The present legal system originates from Britain, where all powers devolved from a single monarch, unlike India’s diverse traditions.
2. The British tried to impose uniformity in a land with diverse customs, castes, and religions, which was alien to them.
3. In ancient times, a learned person could act as a voice in court, but British-style courts introduced technical rules of evidence and specialized lawyers, making justice less accessible.
4. Ancient Panchayats negotiated and sought compromise, while modern courts often leave one party as the clear loser.
5. Ancient laws were flexible, while British law prized rigidity and certainty, even before disputes arose.

Thus, the adoption of the British system created a disconnect between law and society. Even after decades of independence, the administration of justice has not fully satisfied the aspirations of the people, largely because of the imposition of a foreign legal structure and the discarding of indigenous systems of justice administration.