(1) CONCEPT OF STATE AND GOVERNMENT IN ANCIENT

INDIA

INTRODUCTION
India is a federal state with a parliamentary form of government. It is governed under the
1949 constitution (effective since Jan., 1950). The president of India, who is head of state, is
elected for a five-year term by the elected members of the federal and state parliaments; there
are no term limits.
The kingdom of Magadha, ruled by Bimbisara, is the most powerful state in India. The Indian
epic the Ramayana is composed by the sage Valmiki. The life of Siddhartha Gautama
according to modern scholar consensus. Life of Indian Emperor Chandragupta, first ruler of
the Mauryan Empire.
The three theories of origin of state in ancient India are as follows:
1. Social Contract Theory
2. Divine Origin Theory
3. Organic Theory.
The core issues in the study of political science are the state and the government. The
institution of state is studied in relation to its origin, nature, aims and functions of the state in
ancient India. The dawn of civilization was stated to have marked the beginning of the origin
of state. The state in ancient India was considered necessary, for it ensures peace, order and
happiness. It was a social organization with political power. However, ancient scholars were
not unanimous in their opinion with regard to the origin of the state. According to some, state
was the outcome of a contract mainly political in nature between the rulers and the ruled.
They opine that prior to the origin of state there was something called a golden age, wherein
the people enjoyed a life of peace, order, self-discipline and happiness. Similarly, several
theories like force theory, patriarchal theory, matriarchal theory, divine origin theory and
finally the evolutionary theory advanced the origin of the state.
Social Contract Theory:
The social contract theory, one of the common theories of the origin of state, believes that
state is a result of a contract between the king and his subjects or representatives. The king,
thus appointed, was expected to save the state and the subjects from external aggression and
establish order and security within the state. However, the earliest Vedic works never stated
that state was the result of a contract. But, they clarified that king was elected to wage a
successful war against the demons.
Divine Theory:
The Divine theory of origin of kingship as well as the state was not widely acclaimed in the
ancient Indian polity. The emperor, according to this theory, was a subordinate to law, which
was made by the community and not him. The society as a whole was given greater
importance than the king. The king was not allowed to act indiscriminately and was expected
to act as a father to his subjects, and treat them with affection and kindness.
The Divine theory holds the vision that state is like an organism and that each department has
a specific function to perform. The theory believes that the healthy functioning of the whole
organism depends upon the healthy conditions of each part of the body or organism and its
efficient performance.
The seven parts of the body, that is, state are the king or the sovereign, the minister, the
territory and population, the fortified city or the capital, the treasury, the army, the friends and
the allies. Among all the seven elements or parts, it is the king who is most important.
It was also stated in Manusamhita that ‘when the world was not without a king and dispersed
in fear in all directions, the lord created a king for the protection of all. And because, he’s
formed of fragments of all those gods, the king surpasses all other beings in splendor’.
Organic Theory:
Organic theory deals the view that state is like an organism and that each department has a
definite role to execute. The theory deals that the healthy functioning of the whole organism
depends upon the healthy conditions of each part of the body or organism and its efficient
functioning. The seven parts of the body, likes state are the king or the sovereign, the
minister, the territory and population, the fortified city or the capital, the treasury, the army,
the friends and the allies. Among all the seven elements or parts, it is the king who is most
significant.
 (2) CONCEPT OF JUSTICE AND LAW IN ANCIENT INDIA
INTRODUCTION
The administration of justice was not a part of the duties of the state in the early times. We do
not find mention of any judicial organization in the Vedic literature. The aggrieved party used
to sit in front of the accused's house for redressal of his wrongdoing and would not allow him
to walk till his (the aggrieved party)'s claims were satisfied or false. Later justice was
administered by clan and clan assemblies and the judicial process was much simpler.
But with the expansion of the functions of the state and the growth of royal powers, the king
gradually came to be regarded as the core of justice and a more or less elaborate system of
judicial administration came into existence. Dharma Shastra, Ethics and Arthashastra give us
information about well-developed judiciary. According to this literature, the king is the source
of all justice and he had to spend about two hours in adjudication every day. The supreme
duty of the king is to protect his subjects which includes punishing the criminal. The law to
be administered is theology subject to local and other uses not inconsistent with the
scriptures.
TYPES OF COURTS
According to Brihaspati, there are four types of courts likes
 Movable courts
 Stationary courts
 Courts deriving authority from the king and
 Courts were presided by the king himself.
 Brihaspati also mentioned three types of nomadic courts as following:
First: For the promote to forest dwellers.
Second: For the profit of caravan serai merchants.
Third: For the advantage of military men.
According to Bhrighu rishi: There were some of the prominent courts for justice are as
follows:
The Kings Court: At the head of the judicial system stood the king's court at the capital and
presided by the king himself. But more often a learned Brahmana was appointed for the
purpose and he was known as Adhyaksha or Sabhapathi. Earlier the Adhyaksha was selected
for each particular occasion and in course of time became a permanent officer of the state and
held the position of the Chief Justice (Pradvivaka). Apart from the king, this court consisted
of the Pradvivaka and three or four jurors.
Court presided by the Chief Justice: The court presided by the chief justice appointed by
the king called Pradvivaka was the second type of court.
Principal Courts: Another court of importance were the principal courts in a large town
where royal officers assisted by learned person administered justice. They were presided by
Adhyakshas appointed by the central government.
Popular Courts: One special feature of the ancient Indian judicial system is the existence of
popular courts.
According to Yajnavalkya for the first time refers to three types of popular courts.
Kula: The Kula has been defined by the Mitaksharaas consisting of a group of relations, near
or distant. The Kula or joint families were often very extensive in ancient India. If there was a
quarrel between two members the elders used to attempt to settle it. The Kula court was this
informal body of family elders.
Sreni: When the effort at family arbitration failed, the matter was taken to Sreni court. The
term Sreni was used to denote the courts of guilds which became a prominent feature of
commercial life in ancient India from 500 B.C. Sreni had their own executive committees of
four or five members and it is likely that they might have functioned as the Sreni court also
for settling the disputes among their members. This was an assembly of persons following a
particular profession like betel sellers, weavers, shoemakers, and such like.
Puga: Puga was an association of persons drawn from various castes and following different
professions but staying in the same village or town. The Sabha or the village assembly of the
Vedic period and the Gramavriddha court of the Arthasastra were the forerunners of the Puga
court.