Dharm Adhikara (oriental legal system) vs Western legal system.
This post is written in reference to an allegation made by an advocate of Himachal Pradesh to His Holiness Mahayogi Satyendra Nath that the asana upon which he reigns is of Sesh Naaga and he portrays himself as Lord Vishnu and many more. Before answering the query, it would be my privilege to write upon the subjects which I am very interested upon, law and spiritualism. Both are my passions. I am appearing for my bar exam this year and I am an ardent spiritual person initiated to the lineage of Kaula siddhas by His Holiness Mahayogi Satyendra Nath ji maharaj (Ishaputra).
First of all, let us have a look upon the western legal system. The western legal system is the predominant system that is universal. Even countries like Nepal, India have adopted western legal system without a shadow of a doubt. Western legal system mainly consists of Common law system, Continental law system. The American law system is emerging and in recent trends much of legal improvements and break through have come from the American legal system. Pragmatism, originalism, formalism, American realism has much to offer for the world.
The most followed legal system in the world is the Common law system which originated from United Kingdom. UK has no written constitution and the laws of the country are interpreted as per the culture, norms and values of the country called common law. Common law have been furthered by the judges because it is the judges who interprets the common law for adjudicating legal cases. The judges used to travel from places to places for adjudication. Since, it is the judge's interpreted law so to maintain the sanctity of their own decision they formulated a new principle called "Principle of Stare Decisis" which literally means any judgement when made by the court, it strictly has to follow the precedents of similar cases.
In Eastern or Oriental jurisprudence things were very different then that of western legal system. Until this date the Oriental or specially the Hindu legal system is mainly based on scriptures of great personalities. For eg, Yagvalkyasmriti, Manusmriti etc. Great personalities wrote books that served as the basis of justice. Those personality were endowed with the status and rank of "Dharma Adhikar" which means "Dharma eligible". They had the capacity to give justice as per their own discretion because they were learned scholars and people trusted their judgments because the judgments were based on inner conscience and not reasons. Whatever they did, they eventually did it for the betterment of the society.
The fundamental difference between the jurist ad judges of the western legal system and the oriental system were that to become a judge in common law system, one has to get admitted to Law, pass the law, become a lawyer and then become a judge but in oriental concept the judges prepared similar judges like them through guru/sishya disciple lineage and traditions. The guru used to make the disciple exactly like him or her in terms of valor and intellectual. The "Dharma Adhikari" would appoint their disciples as "Dharma Adhikari" after rigorous test because the disciple represented the guru and the guru had to be strict while selecting the disciple to continue the legacy of their traditions.
These days we follow the common law system that is for the reason we value the judges and jurist of common law system more then our own "Dharma Adhikaris". Our "Dharma Adhikari" are far more talented then their judges. For instance, the hedonism principle of Charvaka Rishi is more lively then that of hedonism of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Benthem.
The traditions of "Dharma Adhikar" is in hibernation because in this day and age people have started loosing credibility. The absence of credibility have put this tradition in hibernation. We now follow laws made by politicians and those laws are interpreted and adjudicated by the judges who are politically appointed. How much credible can our laws be said. Since politicians are motivated by power, is our legal system more power friendly and justice friendly? Does he support the riches over poors? Why does it take decades and decades to adjudicate the case of poor people but rich people get instant justice or justice as per their own choosing?
We seriously have to answer it. Is it high time for us to update our legal system? Is our legal system more pragmatic or should it be more of a culture oriented. Isn't it high time for our legal system to find its root and then develop its legal system?
The most followed legal system in the world is the Common law system which originated from United Kingdom. UK has no written constitution and the laws of the country are interpreted as per the culture, norms and values of the country called common law. Common law have been furthered by the judges because it is the judges who interprets the common law for adjudicating legal cases. The judges used to travel from places to places for adjudication. Since, it is the judge's interpreted law so to maintain the sanctity of their own decision they formulated a new principle called "Principle of Stare Decisis" which literally means any judgement when made by the court, it strictly has to follow the precedents of similar cases.
In Eastern or Oriental jurisprudence things were very different then that of western legal system. Until this date the Oriental or specially the Hindu legal system is mainly based on scriptures of great personalities. For eg, Yagvalkyasmriti, Manusmriti etc. Great personalities wrote books that served as the basis of justice. Those personality were endowed with the status and rank of "Dharma Adhikar" which means "Dharma eligible". They had the capacity to give justice as per their own discretion because they were learned scholars and people trusted their judgments because the judgments were based on inner conscience and not reasons. Whatever they did, they eventually did it for the betterment of the society.
The fundamental difference between the jurist ad judges of the western legal system and the oriental system were that to become a judge in common law system, one has to get admitted to Law, pass the law, become a lawyer and then become a judge but in oriental concept the judges prepared similar judges like them through guru/sishya disciple lineage and traditions. The guru used to make the disciple exactly like him or her in terms of valor and intellectual. The "Dharma Adhikari" would appoint their disciples as "Dharma Adhikari" after rigorous test because the disciple represented the guru and the guru had to be strict while selecting the disciple to continue the legacy of their traditions.
These days we follow the common law system that is for the reason we value the judges and jurist of common law system more then our own "Dharma Adhikaris". Our "Dharma Adhikari" are far more talented then their judges. For instance, the hedonism principle of Charvaka Rishi is more lively then that of hedonism of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Benthem.
The traditions of "Dharma Adhikar" is in hibernation because in this day and age people have started loosing credibility. The absence of credibility have put this tradition in hibernation. We now follow laws made by politicians and those laws are interpreted and adjudicated by the judges who are politically appointed. How much credible can our laws be said. Since politicians are motivated by power, is our legal system more power friendly and justice friendly? Does he support the riches over poors? Why does it take decades and decades to adjudicate the case of poor people but rich people get instant justice or justice as per their own choosing?
We seriously have to answer it. Is it high time for us to update our legal system? Is our legal system more pragmatic or should it be more of a culture oriented. Isn't it high time for our legal system to find its root and then develop its legal system?
Comments
Post a Comment