The Mughal Justice System: Qazi, the Muhtasib, and the Emperor as Supreme Judge

The Mughal emperor was, in theory and to a substantial degree in practice, the supreme judge of his realm, and the system of justice that operated under the dynasty combined the Islamic legal tradition inherited from the Sultanate with the distinctive Mughal practice of the emperor’s personal intervention in important cases. The present page treats the sources of law, the role of the qazi and the qazi-ul-quzat, the muhtasib and the moral regulation of the public sphere, the emperor as supreme judge, the doctrine of farr-i-izadi, the formal and informal mechanisms of dispute resolution, the famous cases, and the limitations of the system. The broader administrative framework is surveyed in the Mughal administration overview, and the bureaucracy that implemented the emperor’s judicial decisions is examined in the Mughal bureaucracy page.

Sources of Law

The Mughal legal system rested on four sources of law, applied in different domains. The first was the sharia, the Islamic sacred law derived from the Quran, the hadith or traditions of the Prophet, the ijma or consensus of the jurists, and the qiyas or analogical reasoning. The sharia was, in theory, the supreme law in all cases involving Muslims, particularly in matters of personal status, marriage, inheritance, religious endowment, and ritual. The Mughal state recognized the sharia as the supreme religious law and appointed a sadr-us-sudur or chief ecclesiastical officer to supervise its application.

The second source was the zabita, the secular law of the state, including the regulations issued by the emperor, the rules of procedure of the diwan, the mansabdari regulations, the revenue law, and the commercial law. The zabita governed the routine administration of justice and was applied by the qazi and the diwan in cases not specifically reserved for the sharia. The third source was the urf, the customary law of the region, which was applied in cases involving non-Muslims and in matters not specifically covered by the sharia or the zabita. The fourth source was the farman and the personal ruling of the emperor, which could override any of the other three sources in any specific case.

The Qazi and the Qazi-ul-Quzat

The principal judicial officer of the empire was the qazi, the judge of the sharia and of the ordinary civil and criminal cases. The qazi was appointed by the emperor, generally on the recommendation of the sadr-us-sudur, and held office in each important city, sarkar, and provincial capital. The qazi was required to be a learned Muslim, well versed in the fiqh or jurisprudence of one of the four Sunni schools of law, and the Mughal emperors generally appointed qazis of the Hanafi school, which was the official school of the Mughal state.

The chief qazi of the empire, the qazi-ul-quzat, was the head of the qazi corps and the principal judicial officer next to the emperor. The qazi-ul-quzat was appointed by the emperor and held a high mansab rank, generally between 1500 and 4000. The qazi-ul-quzat was expected to supervise the work of the provincial qazis, to hear appeals from the lower qazis, to advise the emperor on legal questions, and to represent the judicial system in the durbar. The holders of the office under Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jahan, and Aurangzeb were among the most distinguished jurists of the age.

The qazi’s court was, in theory, accessible to all subjects, Muslim and non-Muslim, and the procedure was in principle equal. In practice, the qazi’s court was the principal court of civil and criminal justice for the urban population, and the rural population had recourse to the village panchayat, the faujdar, the kotwal, and the local qanungo for the routine resolution of disputes.

The Muhtasib and Moral Regulation

A separate officer, the muhtasib, was responsible for the moral regulation of the public sphere, the supervision of markets, weights and measures, the conduct of tradesmen, the enforcement of the public morality, and the regulation of religious practice. The muhtasib’s office derived from the early Islamic tradition, in which the muhtasib was the supervisor of the public good, the hisba. The muhtasib could impose fines, order the closure of offending establishments, and bring cases of public immorality to the attention of the qazi. The muhtasib’s work was supplemented by the kotwal of the city, who was responsible for the maintenance of public order, the safety of the streets, the regulation of the inns, the supervision of the night watch, and the arrest of criminals.

The Emperor as Supreme Judge

The most distinctive feature of the Mughal justice system was the personal intervention of the emperor in important cases. The emperor was, in theory, the supreme judge of the empire, and the doctrine of farr-i-izadi, the divine illumination of the emperor, was used to justify the emperor’s authority to override the rulings of any qazi and to decide any case on its merits. The doctrine drew on the pre-Islamic Iranian tradition of the divine glory of the king, the farr-i-izadi of the Sasanian and Timurid monarchs, and the Mughal emperors, particularly Akbar and Jahangir, made prominent use of the doctrine to assert their authority over the legal system.

The emperor heard cases in several ways. The most formal was the diwan-i-aam or public audience, the daily session of the durbar at which subjects could present petitions and grievances. The emperor listened to petitions, asked questions, and on occasion gave a verbal judgment, which was then reduced to writing by the secretary and transmitted to the relevant officer for execution. The second was the diwan-i-khas or private audience, at which important cases were heard in the inner court and the emperor’s judgment was final. The third was the mazalim or grievance court, the formal session held on certain days, generally once a week, at which the emperor heard appeals from the lower courts and petitions against the actions of officials.

The emperor’s intervention was particularly notable in cases of religious or political sensitivity, in cases involving the great nobles, and in cases where the qazi’s ruling was contested. The judgment of the emperor was final, and the qazi who disagreed was generally required to comply. The most famous example of the emperor’s personal judicial intervention is the jharokha-i-darshan practice of Akbar and Jahangir, in which the emperor appeared at a particular window of the palace every morning to receive petitions and to give audience to the people. The practice is treated in more detail in the Mughal court ceremonial page.

Informal Mechanisms and the Village

The formal system of qazis and muhtasibs was supplemented by a wide range of informal mechanisms. The village panchayat, the council of the elders, was the principal mechanism of dispute resolution in the rural areas, and the panchayat’s decisions were in practice the working law of the village in the great majority of civil and minor criminal cases. The panchayat’s authority rested on the customary law of the village, the personal authority of the elders, and the practical sanction of social pressure. A second informal mechanism was the mahajan or merchant guild, which maintained its own courts of arbitration for commercial disputes. A third was the family and the caste panchayat, which resolved disputes within the joint family and the caste community.

Limitations of the System

The Mughal justice system had several important limitations. The first was the limited reach of the formal court system: the great majority of disputes were resolved at the village level, and the qazi’s court was primarily an urban institution. The second was the dependence of the system on the personal qualities of the officers: a corrupt or poorly trained qazi could turn the court into an instrument of injustice. The third was the disparity of access: the rich and the well-connected had substantially better access to the qazi and to the emperor than the poor. The fourth was the absence of a developed public-defence institution: the accused in a criminal case was required to defend himself, often against an officer of the state, and the rights of the defence were not formally defined. The Mughal system nevertheless represented a high point of pre-modern judicial administration in India, and the elaborate framework of qazis, muhtasibs, kotwals, and imperial intervention, combined with the mazalim or grievance court and the village panchayat, provided a working system of justice for a vast and diverse population.