Verse 8.13

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

सभां वा न प्रवेष्टव्यं वक्तव्यं वा समञ्जसम् ।
अब्रुवन् विब्रुवन् वाऽपि नरो भवति किल्बिषी ॥ १३ ॥

sabhāṃ vā na praveṣṭavyaṃ vaktavyaṃ vā samañjasam |
abruvan vibruvan vā'pi naro bhavati kilbiṣī || 13 ||

One should either not enter the Court at all, or he should speak out what is equitable; one who either spe aks nothing, or speaks falsely, becomes tainted with sin.—(13)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What is asserted here forbids two things—(a) he who has accepted the appointment (of a Judge) should not be unjust, and (b) he should not slur over the injustice committed by others; since both these involve sin.

‘Speaks nothing’;—i.e., he who remains silent when another person is committing an injustice,—or he who interferes in the investigation and then says what is not compatible with the scriptures or with justice—‘becomes tainted with sin’—i.e., comes to partake of the sin. Hence the man should not entertain the hope that—‘it is another judge who is judging wrongly, and he may incur sin, I am only sitting silent and indifferent, why should I he affected by the sin?’

By the prohibiting of entrance into the Court what is forbidden is the accepting of the appointment of a judge to investigate cases; so that what is meant by the sentence ‘one should not enter the Court’ is that ‘he should not accept the appointment of the investigating judge, or, if he does accept it, he should speak out what is just.’

This has been taken to imply that when even an unauthorised person happens.to be present, if he finds that the judges are acting wrongly, he should not remain silent. To this end wo have the assertion—‘Authorised or unauthorised, the man who knows what is just should always speak out’ (Nārada 2.2). If he fear molestation at the hands of the king’s officers as to why he should speak, when he is not authorised to do so,—then he should go away from that place. In support of this we have the following assertion—‘When a wrong is being inflicted upon a weak person, if one does not save him from it, he incurs sin, only if he hag the power to gave him’ (Gautama, 21.19).—(13)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 604);—in Mitākṣarā (on 2.2), in support, of the view that the assessors duly appointed incur sin if they do not, check the king in the event of his taking an illegal course; but as regards other people present, these incur sin only if they either speak falsely or suppress the truth,—and not for not checking the king;—and again on 2.83;—and also in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, p. 12a).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Śukranīti (4.5.53, 55).—‘The man who knows Dharma can speak, whether appointed or not appointed. Either one should not come to the Court, or should speak truthfully. That man is a sinner who keeps silent or utters falsehood.’

Nārada (3.10).—‘Either the judicial assembly must not be entered at all, or a fair opinion should be delivered. That man who stands mute or delivers an opinion contrary to justice, is a sinner.’

Nārada (3.14).—‘He who, having entered the Court, delivers a strange opinion, ignoring the true state of the case, resembles a blind man who, regardless, swallows fish together with the bones.’