Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g7rbq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T06:20:51.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Lawyers” in Classical Hindu Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Ludo Rocher
Ludo Rocher*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There can be no doubt that parties to a lawsuit in ancient Hindu law had a right to be represented by other persons. The question arises whether or not the representatives referred to in the ancient texts correspond to the pleaders, advocates, vakils or attorneys of modern India. In other words, did ancient Hindu law have the kind of legal procedure in which the rights of the parties were safeguarded through the services of a class of experts, as is the case in present day India and in most other modern legal systems?

Looking at Hindu law as it became known to the West in the latter half of the 18th century, it did indeed seem as if the question was to be answered in the affirmative. Halhed's Code of Gentoo Laws (1777), translating the Vivadarnavasetu, did have a section (ch. III, § II) explicitly called “Of appointing a vakeel (or attorney).”

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 3 , Issue 2-3: Special Issue Devoted to Lawyers in Developing Societies, with Particular Reference to India , February 1969 , pp. 383 - 402
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 by the Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. N. B. Halhed, A Code of Gentoo Laws 93 (1777).

2. J. Jolly, Beitrage zur indischen Rechtsgeschichte. Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 44, at 346 (1890).

3. J. Jolly, Hindu Law and Custom 299 (B. K. Ghosh transl. 1928).

4. J. Kohler, Altindisches Prozessrecht 20 (1891).

5. K. P. Jayaswal, Manu and Yajnavalkya. A Comparison and a Contrast. A Treatise on the Basic Hindu Law 288-89 (1931).

6. 3 P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra 288 (1946).

7. U. C. Sarkar, Epochs in Hindu Legal History 37 (1958).

8. S. Varadachariar, The Hindu Judicial System 156 (1946).

9. Madras L. J. 201 (1909).

10. Id. at 153.

11. J. Jolly, The Minor Lawbooks 29 (Sacred Books of the East 33, 1889).

12. Id.

13. Varadachariar, supra note 8, at 157.

14. L. Rocher, Vacaspatimisra's Vyavaharacintamani 168 (1956).

15. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, Brhaspatismrti (Reconstructed) 23 (Gaekwad's Oriental Series 85, 1941).

16. Jolly, supra note 11, at 288.

17. P. V. Kane, Katyayanasmrti on vyavahara (law and procedure) 14-15 (1933).

18. Id. at 133-34.

19. Id. at 133.

20. K. Scriba, Die Fragmente des Pitamaha. Text und Uebersetzung (1902).

21. R. P. Kangle, The Kautiliya Arthasastra, Part II 293 (1963).

22. L. Sternbach, Juridical Studies in Ancient Hindu Law, Part I 324-25 (1965).

23. B. K. Sarkar, The Sukraniti (Sacred Books of the Hindus 13, 1914).

24. Kane, supra note 6, at 158-59.

25. Varadachariar, supra note 8, at 158-59.

26. L. Rocher, Ancient Hindu Criminal Law, 24 J. Oriental Research Madras 15-34 (1955).

27. G. Buehler, The Laws of Manu 276 (Sacred Books of the East 25, 1886).

28. P. N. K. Sahay, A Short History of the Indian Bar 4-6 (1931).

29. Kane, supra note 6, at 290.

30. M. Winternitz, Geschichte der indischen Litteratur. Band III 531 (1920).

31. Varadachariar, supra note 8, at 157.

32. Kane, supra note 6, at XVII-XX.