Judicial Administration in the Mughal Empire: Civil and Criminal Justice

The Mughal Empire, which stretched across the Indian subcontinent for over three centuries, was not merely a political entity – it was a civilization governed by a deeply codified sense of divine justice. At the heart of its administration lay a judicial system rooted in Islamic law, shaped by the Quran, and enforced by a structured hierarchy of officials. Understanding how the Mughals administered justice – from settling property disputes to punishing the gravest crimes – reveals the complex relationship between religion, governance, and power in medieval India.

The foundation: Islamic law and the Quran 🔗

The entire edifice of Mughal judicial administration rested on the precepts of the Quran and Islamic jurisprudence. The laws were based largely on the Holy Book of Islam, with the Quran, the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet), and the Ijma (consensus of opinion among scholars) forming the primary sources of legal authority. This was not simply a religious arrangement – it was a constitutional one. The Mughal emperor, regarded as the “Shadow of God on Earth” (Zill-i-Ilahi), was the ultimate fountain of justice and bore the moral responsibility of dispensing it impartially to all subjects.

What made the system particularly complex was its application across a vast, religiously diverse population. The Mughal Empire’s judicial system was fundamentally grounded in Islamic law (Sharia), drawing authority from the Quran and the Hadith, yet it had to be applied practically across a population that included millions of non-Muslim subjects. Emperors like Akbar introduced an element of pluralism through his philosophy of Sulh-i-Kul (universal peace), which allowed non-Muslim communities to seek justice within their own legal frameworks to a significant extent.

The court hierarchy: From the Emperor to the village 🔗

The Mughal judicial system operated through a tiered hierarchy of courts, ensuring that justice was theoretically accessible across the empire’s vast territories – from its imperial capitals to the most remote villages.

The Emperor’s court 🔗

At the apex stood the Emperor himself. The Emperor personally adjudicated critical civil and criminal cases, often on designated days – Akbar on Thursdays, Jahangir on Tuesdays, and Aurangzeb on Wednesdays. The emperor presided over the Diwan-i-Khas (Hall of Private Audience) or Diwan-i-Aam (Hall of Public Audience), where petitions were heard. A key feature of this practice was the Jharokha Darshan, where the emperor appeared before the public daily to receive petitions and adjudicate disputes directly. No capital sentence could be executed without imperial approval – Akbar’s 1582 farman prohibited provincial governors from awarding the death penalty without imperial sanction, while Jahangir further required that executions not be carried out until sunset, allowing time for a royal pardon.

Provincial and district courts 🔗

Below the imperial court, the judicial apparatus extended to every administrative subdivision of the empire – the subah (province), the sarkar (district), the pargana, and the village. Provincial Qazis were appointed to each subah to oversee justice at the provincial level, while District Qazis at the sarkar level handled most routine civil and criminal cases. In provincial capitals, the Mir Adl served as the chief justice, responsible for upholding the emperor’s justice and resolving disputes. This multilayered arrangement ensured that cases could begin locally and, if contested, work their way up to the emperor himself.

The Qazi: Pillar of Mughal justice 🔗

The Qazi was the cornerstone of the entire judicial system. The Mughal Qadi was responsible for dispensing justice, including settling disputes, judging people for crimes, and dealing with inheritances and orphans. The seal of the Qadi was also required to validate deeds and tax records. This dual role – judicial and administrative – made the Qazi one of the most indispensable officials at every level of Mughal governance.

Qazis were required to be well-versed in the Quran, the Sunna, and the Shariat. They were expected to hear both parties in a dispute, examine evidence, and consult established legal precedents before delivering a verdict. The Muftis assisted the Qazis by issuing fatwas (legal opinions) through deliberation based on past judgments, providing verdicts to the Qazi and explaining the law. These legal opinions served as crucial guides when novel or complex situations arose.

A Qazi on appointment was directed to take possession of all records from his predecessor, review the state of prisoners confined on legal claims, and conduct proceedings honestly and impartially. The Qazi was appointed by a Royal Sanad issued by the Sadar-us-Sudur. While the appointment process was technically supervised by the Sadar’s department, the actual superior of the Qazi at the district level was the provincial Qazi, reflecting Akbar’s deliberate separation of the judicial department from direct Sadar control.

Civil justice under the Mughals 🔗

Civil justice in the Mughal Empire covered a broad range of matters – property disputes, marriage and divorce, inheritance, commercial contracts, and matters of personal law. The proceedings were governed by the sacred laws of the Quran, with Qazis interpreting and applying Sharia principles to each case. A notable feature of civil justice was the emphasis on documentation – property transfers, business contracts, and marriage agreements were frequently recorded in writing and authenticated by Qazis, creating a substantial paper trail that could be referred to in case of disputes.

The system also showed a degree of pluralism. In non-criminal matters, the Qazis’ courts allowed and attracted – but did not require – all Mughal subjects to avail of their civil jurisdiction, representing a form of “permissive inclusion” into Sharia. For disputes between Hindu parties, local customs and Hindu personal law were often applied. This accommodation of diverse practices helped maintain social stability across a multi-religious empire.

Criminal justice: The three categories of crime 🔗

The Mughal criminal justice system was structured around a clear theological framework. According to the Quran, crimes were divided into three categories: crimes against God, crimes against the sovereign (State crimes), and crimes against private individuals. This tripartite classification shaped not just the nature of punishment but also the degree of mercy that could be extended.

Hudud: Crimes against God 🔗

Hudud referred to offences explicitly cited in the Quran, for which the punishments were fixed and non-negotiable – neither the judge nor the emperor could modify them. Hudud crimes included theft, adultery, false accusation of adultery, highway robbery, drinking alcohol, and apostasy, with punishments such as amputation of the hand for theft and severe whipping or stoning for adultery. These were considered the gravest offences because they violated divine commandments directly. However, the evidentiary bar was extremely high – often requiring four reliable witnesses or a voluntary confession – which in practice made convictions under Hudud relatively rare.

Qisas: Crimes against individuals 🔗

Qisas covered crimes of personal injury, murder, and bodily harm, operating under the principle of equal retaliation – the concept of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” was actively recognized during the Mughal period. Murder and severe injury came under the category of Kisas, and sometimes the culprit could save his life by paying a heavy fine (diya, or blood money) if the victim’s family agreed to a compromise. In cases where no compromise was reached, the Qazi, assessing the gravity of the crime, was authorized to award capital punishment.

Tazir: Discretionary punishments 🔗

Tazir covered all offences not falling under the fixed categories of Hudud or Qisas. Tazir transgressions included gambling, forging currency, injuring others, and committing minor offences. For these, the courts exercised complete discretion in awarding punishments – fines, imprisonment, flogging, or public shaming. This flexibility allowed judges to respond to local conditions and the specific circumstances of each offence.

The severity of punishments 🔗

The Mughal penal code was, by modern standards, exceptionally harsh. Mutilation of limbs and physical torture could be awarded only with the consent of the emperor. Executions and other punishments were frequently public and symbolic, serving not just as retribution but also as a deterrent. Convicted criminals were sometimes thrown from fort walls, torn apart, banished to distant places like Mecca, or subjected to prolonged imprisonment in one of the three “noble-prisons” at Gwalior, Ranthambore, and Rohtas.

Yet the system was not without mechanisms of mercy. Imperial pardons were a significant feature – emperors routinely granted clemency on auspicious occasions or during public celebrations. The concept of diya (blood money) allowed families of victims to accept compensation rather than demand physical retribution. This balance between severity and mercy was a deliberate element of Mughal jurisprudential philosophy.

The Sadar-us-Sudur: Chief Justice of the empire 🔗

At the apex of the Mughal judicial hierarchy, just below the emperor, stood the Sadar-us-Sudur (commonly referred to simply as the Sadar), who functioned as the empire’s Chief Justice. The Sadar-us-Sudur was the minister in charge of law and religious patronage, responsible for appointing judges and managing charities and stipends. This dual role – legal and ecclesiastical – made the Sadar one of the most powerful figures in the Mughal administrative structure.

The Sadar served as the final court of appeal for major cases, supervised all judicial officers throughout the empire, ensured legal decisions aligned with Islamic principles, and counselled the emperor on matters of law and religion. He also maintained records of legal precedents and worked to ensure uniform application of justice across regions. All foremost Mughal rulers appointed their Sadars without sectarian consideration, and the appointed Sadars were given increasingly significant duties linked to the political affairs of the Mughal court.

One of the most challenging aspects of the Sadar’s role was balancing imperial interests with religious obligations. During the reign of Akbar – whose Din-i-Ilahi and syncretic religious experiments occasionally diverged from orthodox Islamic practice – the Sadar had to navigate considerable tension between loyalty to the throne and fidelity to Sharia. This tension shaped the character of the office throughout the empire’s history.

Codification of law: The Fatawa-i-Alamgiri 🔗

The most significant attempt to systematize Mughal legal practice came under Emperor Aurangzeb, who commissioned the compilation of the Fatawa-i-Alamgiri. This 17th-century Sharia-based compilation on statecraft, justice, and punishment served as the law and principal regulating body of the Mughal Empire during Aurangzeb’s reign, and has been described as the greatest digest of Muslim law during Mughal India. The work was assembled over eight years (1664-1672) by over 500 scholars drawn from across the Islamic world, including jurists from South Asia, Iraq, and the Hejaz.

It was a creative application of Islamic law within the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, and it restricted the powers of Muslim judiciary officials and Islamic jurists’ ability to issue purely discretionary fatwas. By standardizing legal precedents and providing a definitive reference text, Aurangzeb sought to address the inconsistency that had long plagued Mughal judicial practice. The Fatawa-i-Alamgiri later became the reference legal text used to enforce Sharia in colonial South Asia well into the early 20th century.

Limitations and corruption in the system 🔗

Despite its elaborate structure and religious grounding, the Mughal judicial system had serious and well-documented flaws. The Qazis of the period were often not persons of character – many were greedy, accepted gifts and bribes, were not well-versed in law, and some worked only two or three days a week, holding courts at their residences. This adversely impacted the quality of justice delivered to ordinary subjects.

Non-Muslims faced structural disadvantages since religious and civil laws were not separated – a Shia or non-Muslim could not decide a case involving a Muslim. Social bias also played a role: higher social status often translated to better treatment, and wealthy litigants could more easily influence outcomes. Sir Jadunath Sarkar famously remarked that nearly all Mughal Qazis were known for taking bribes, with only a handful of honourable exceptions.

Aurangzeb made efforts to reform these practices. To protect personal liberty, Aurangzeb issued a Farman stating that no one could be taken into custody without prima facie legal evidence, and he introduced the concept of Remand of the Accused, which obliged Kotwals to obtain written authorization from the Qazi before imprisoning an accused for inquiry. These procedural safeguards, though limited in practice, represented an awareness that systemic reform was necessary.

Legacy of the Mughal judicial system 🔗

The Mughal judicial system left a deep imprint on the legal landscape of the Indian subcontinent. When the British East India Company took administrative control of Bengal in the 18th century, Warren Hastings attempted to take full control of the judicial system and devised a new structure largely based on the Mughal model, establishing civil courts (Diwani Adalat) and criminal courts (Faujdari Adalat) at the district level. The Fatawa-i-Alamgiri itself continued to be used as the foundational legal text for Muslim personal law in colonial courts for well over a century after the Mughal Empire’s decline.

The Mughal judicial legacy was thus a mixed inheritance – a sophisticated hierarchy capable of delivering justice at scale, tempered by corruption, religious bias, and the absence of a uniform codified law that applied equally to all subjects. It was both a product of its time and a precursor to the modern legal institutions that eventually replaced it.

What do you think? The Mughal judicial system tried to balance divine law with the practical needs of governing a diverse empire – do you think a legal system rooted in religious texts can ever be truly impartial across different communities? And given that corruption among judicial officers was so widespread, what structural safeguards do you think were missing that modern judicial systems have since put in place?

References

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-system-time-mughals-india/
2. https://banotes.org/admin-system-union-level/judicial-practices-legal-framework-mughal-empire/
3. https://edukemy.com/blog/judicial-administration-of-the-mughal-empire-upsc-medieval-history-notes/
4. https://www.scribd.com/document/941829763/Administration-of-Justice-in-Mughal-India-Notes
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_Mughal_Empire
6. https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LAW-AND-ORDER-IN-THE-MUGHAL-EMPIRE-INSIGHTS-INTO-JUSTICE-ADMINISTRATION.pdf
7. https://www.historymarg.com/2023/10/judicial-system-in-mughal-india.html
8. https://www.academia.edu/12096011/legal_system_in_mughal_empire
9. https://www.historyforexam.com/2018/12/law-and-justice-during-mughal-period.html
10. https://www.ijrti.org/papers/IJRTI2305141.pdf
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatawa_%27Alamgiri
12. https://www.nextias.com/blog/judicial-system-in-british-india/