Dharmic Legal System Vs Adversarial System
Bharat’s legal system is undergoing a game-changing transformation. It’s giving a new lease of life to Bharatiya legal system to transform & is advocating for Dharmic legal system
Author: M Sundara Rami Reddy
Published: Jan 26, 2026
Link: https://organiser.org/2026/01/26/336790/bharat/dharmic-legal-system-vs-adversarial-system/
In August 27, 2023 edition, Organiser Weekly first presented idea and suggested that the process to overhaul the justice delivery system should be seen as a constructive step towards decolonisation. Bharat needs a 360° approach to make our legal system indigenous, effective and based on the eternal Dharmic principles of Mimamsa and Danda Niti.
Justice S Abdul Nazeer, as a sitting Supreme Court judge, delivered a speech on “Decolonisation of Indian Legal System” on December 26, 2021, at the National Conference of Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad.
He had said:
“A colonial psyche persists in the administration of justice in the present day Bharatiya legal system. The British colonialists protected their subjects only on the surrender of the rights to the rulers. In other words, justice could not be demanded but rather it was allowed by the State as a matter of concession. This is in contrast to the ancient Bharatiya legal systems, where justice could be demanded, being the concept that was inbuilt. Ancient legal systems of Bharat even required kings to bend before the rule of law and justice could be demanded against the kin or even the king himself. Instead of this approach, the colonial mindset left behind by British colonialists is apparent from the manner in which pleadings are drafted in Court today, the way in which the Courts are addressed and more importantly, by accessibility to Court itself.”
He further said:
“The need of the hour is the Bharatiyakaran of the legal system. The eradication of such a colonial mindset may take time but I hope that my words will evoke some of you to think deeply about this issue and the steps that need to be taken to decolonise the Bharatiya legal system. Even though it may be an enormous and time-consuming effort, I firmly believe that it would be an endeavour which could revitalise the legal system and align it with the cultural, social and heritage aspects of a great Nation and ensure much more robust delivery of justice.”
Justice PN Prakash, who recently retired from Madras High Court, has called the judicial system a “farce” and said that though calling it “bogus” may be harsh, the criticism is valid.
He argued that Western jurisprudence was shaped by the Greek belief that there is only one life and that time is linear. Bharatiyas, on the other hand, believe in several lives and in the theory of Karma. Time is cyclical, and therefore injustices are often suffered stoically. People tolerate boycotts of courts by lawyers and delays in case disposal, attributing them to Karma.
He remarked:
“Truth and justice are twin sisters. And in the absence of truth in the system, what we are delivering is not justice, but merely judgements.”
In the case MC Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors, former Chief Justice of India Justice PN Bhagwati observed:
“We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for that matter in any other foreign country. We no longer need the crutches of a foreign legal order.”
Mahatma Gandhi in his book Hind Swaraj wrote:
“Whenever instances of lawyers having done good can be brought forward, it will be found that the good is due to them as men rather than as lawyers. All I am concerned with is to show you that the profession teaches immorality; it is exposed to temptation from which few are saved from time to time.”
Dharma Based Legal System
Bharat, for centuries, had a robust legal system. It was based on Dharma and administered through communities, panchayats, trade guilds, caste and sub-caste organisations, local groups, families and extended families.
The legal system has two wings:
Theoretical foundation
Practical implementation
In Bharatiya society, Dharma had percolated to the last person. Cultural channels such as folk songs, folk tales, Hari Katha, Burra Katha, pravachanams, temples, and devotional traditions helped spread the understanding of Dharma widely among the people.
Pandits knowledgeable in the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and Dharmashastras occupied important positions in society and were consulted in complex matters.
Disputes were resolved locally and often immediately. It has been observed that more than 70% of disputes were settled through village panchayats, where disputants selected members of the community to decide the matter. Thus, the role of formal courts was only the “tip of the iceberg.”
The author states that even today 80–90% of disputes in villages are settled informally, without legal technicalities or fees, through amicable settlements.
Justice Rama Jois in his treatise on ancient Indian constitutional and legal history summarised that Dharma, including law, was binding on the king. According to Rajadharma, the king had authority only to enforce the law, not to legislate new laws.
Dharmashastras also prescribed rules governing the conduct of the king himself.
This created a key difference between Indian and Western ideas of kingship:
In the West, the king was the source of legislative, executive and judicial authority.
In the Dharmic system, the king himself was subject to Dharma.
Colonial Influence and the Adversarial System
England’s known history spans roughly 2000 years. Much of its early history involved wars and migrations. British and European explorers travelled worldwide seeking resources and livelihood.
When the British came to Bharat around 400 years ago, they did not understand concepts such as atma, paramatma, and punarjanma, which were familiar to ordinary Indians.
The British introduced their own systems, including English education, property laws and the adversarial legal system inspired by Macaulay’s reforms.
The adversarial legal system attempts to establish truth through the contest between prosecution and defence before a neutral judge.
The Malimath Committee Report (2003) explained that:
The criminal justice system in India follows the adversarial model inherited from British rule.
The judge acts as an umpire who determines whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The judge usually does not actively investigate the truth but remains neutral between the parties.
Because of this structure, critics argue that the adversarial system often fails to uncover truth effectively.
The Malimath Committee also observed that globally there are two major legal traditions:
Adversarial system
Inquisitorial system
Each has borrowed features from the other over time.
The article concludes that mere amendments to colonial-era laws may not be sufficient and that true decolonisation of the legal system requires a fundamental shift toward Dharmic principles of justice.
Comments
Post a Comment