Legal system in ancient and medieval Sri Lanka

Kamalika Peiris

R.A.L.H Gunawardana noted that the elements of a system of judicial administration could be seen very early in Sri Lanka’s history. S.G.M. Weerasinghe pointed out that the terms ‘dharma,’ ‘vohara,’ ‘nyaya,’ ‘niti’ and ‘sirit’ used in the ancient period, indicated laws of some sort. ‘Dharma,’ ‘nyaya,’ and ‘vohara’ signified, respectively, the religious, moral and practical aspects of the law.

The concept ‘pera sirit’ which was in vogue in ancient times conveyed a sense of laws applied in the past.

I think that a legal ethos developed over time, Paranavitana noted that the inscriptions of the late Anuradhapura period were couched in legal phraseology. Buddhism would have helped in this. The Vinaya Pitaka contained ecclesiastical law. The Tripitaka referred to law suits, offences, bribes, witnesses, trying a case, judgment, punishment and natural law. I think that the subject of law came to be treated as a scholarly discipline. Papancasudani (5 Century) referred to a treatise on law.

During the time of queen Kalyanavati (1202-1208) a military commander named Ayasmantha compiled a book on law. Justice seems to have been symbolized by a pair of scales. Saddharmaratnavali has a sentence which refers to judging a case impartially, like a pair of scales.

Knowledge of the law was valued. During the reign of Bhatika Tissa (143-167) the monk, Godatta, had delivered a judgment on a matter involving the determination of the monetary value of a stolen object.

The king was so impressed that he gave this monk the authority to hear any case in the kingdom. Vattagamani abhaya (89-77BC) was said to have been a specialist in niti, so was Vijayabahu I. The monk, Tipitaka Culabhaya was a celebrated specialist in jurisprudence. Galpota slab inscription indicates that Nissanka Malla who himself was learned in the law encouraged others to learn the law by giving them suitable means of subsistence. Nissanka Malla was a criminologist as well. He said that he had eliminated the root cause of crime, which was poverty.

Written laws

There was a formal set of laws. Inscriptions such as Vevalketiya inscription of Mahinda IV (956-972) and the Kondavattavan pillar inscription of Dappula IV (924-935) confirm that the laws were written laws. The king was considered to be the fount of justice and was the main source of law.

Vevalkatiya inscription was issued by the king’s officers in accordance with the mandate delivered by the king in council. Decrees were also made by heir apparent (mahapa) and heir presumptive (apa or adipada). Royal officers also had the power to make regulations. Kandavuru da sirita stated that Parakrama bahu II having listened to the laws made by his officers, would either reprimand them or ratify them. The dandanayake could also make regulations.

There were substantive laws which defined the rights, duties and liabilities of persons. Kondavattavan Pillar inscription refers to dues on trees and creepers in accordance with the law. There were laws regarding the use of waterways. It was an offence to divert water which led to another’s field.

If this was done, such blocking was illegal and if the water had issued out compensation had to be paid. Vevalkatiya inscription prescribes punishment for aggravated assault not amounting to murder and for the theft of cattle that are stolen but not slaughtered.

Complex regulations

Samantapasadika (5th Century) contains intricate and complex regulations regarding the theft of fish. In one instance the law looked at the issue of the ownership of fish that comes out to branch channels from private or State owned reservoirs. It also considered the issue of fish that jump out of the water when a person is fishing in a reservoir or canal. Since properties were transferred through deeds, Weerasinghe suggests that there would have been property law.

There were also adjective laws which set out legal procedures and standards of proof. Dharmapradeepika (12th Century) has references on complaints, Dampiya atuva getapadaya (10th Century) on trials and Kavsilumina (13th Century) on judicial processes and appeal.

There was an island-wide, centrally controlled judicial system with the king at the apex. Situlpahuwa inscription of Gajabahu I (114-136) confirms this. It showed that the judicial system was under the king and that law courts were set up in urban centers located at considerable distance from Anuradhapura.

Priti danaka mandapa inscription of Nissanka malla states that he suppressed injustices in many place by setting up courts of justice. The Buddhist text Karmavibhaga (12 Century) indicates that a regular system of juridical courts with a penal code designed to provide security for person and property had emerged. There were ecclesiastical courts. In time of Bhatika tissa, Godattha, a learned monk had delivered a judgment on a matter involving the determination of the monetary value of a stolen object.

High officials

The administration of justice was carried out by several authorities. The king judged all important cases. Anguttara nikaya and Majjhima nikaya state that the King’s court was referred to as ‘maha vinischaya’. Siriweera says that this power was exercised by him with extreme care and in consultation with high officials.

All cases against royal princes and the high dignitaries of the State that came before the judges had to be referred to the king for a final decision. The king also had original jurisdiction and at times heard even simple cases.

The senapati was regarded as the highest judicial authority next to the king up to 4th Century AD.

Legal principles were upheld. Offenders could be punished only after due trial. According to the Sammohavinodini the concept of equality before the law was accepted. Bhatika abhaya punished a group by making them clean the royal compound. When he exempted one from this punishment, he released the rest as well.

Kondavattavan pillar inscription (9th Century) said that a person could not be tried twice for the same offence. Kondavattavan and the slab inscription of Kassapa V stated that once fines were paid the offender could not be fined again for same offence.

The Rajappaveni potthaka mentioned in Papancasudani speaks of judicial precedents.