The Evolution of Legal Systems: From Mughal India to Western Codification

When one examines the history of legal systems across the world, a striking pattern emerges: many pre-modern legal codes were sophisticated on paper but extremely limited in scope for the general population. The Mughal Empire in India provides a compelling example. In theory, the empire’s legal framework was codified. Sharia courts, guided by Hanafi jurisprudence, and the imperial farmans outlined in texts such as the Ain-i-Akbari were intended to regulate criminal law, civil disputes, and administrative matters. Qazis were nominally trained jurists, and the emperor’s decrees provided a framework for governance. In reality, however, these institutions had very narrow reach. Royal courts existed primarily in major cities and provincial centers, while the majority of the population - peasants, artisans, and villagers - were largely excluded from formal justice. The qadis themselves were often local mullahs or landholding elites, whose level of jurisprudential training varied greatly. Enforcement of imperial law relied on local power structures, such as zamindars and militias, and without their cooperation, even codified statutes remained theoretical. Most people therefore had to rely on customary law and local arbitration through village councils, panchayats, or jirgas. These mechanisms, while flexible and socially embedded, were highly inconsistent and often skewed by social hierarchies or the influence of local elites.

A similar pattern existed in other contemporary legal systems outside Europe. In many regions, law was codified in principle, but its practical application was limited and uneven. Access to justice was constrained by geography, social status, and administrative capacity. It was only with the medieval European legal revival that a substantially different model emerged. From the twelfth century onward, European societies developed legal systems rooted in Roman law and canon law, codified in procedural handbooks and applied by professionally trained jurists. Courts appeared even in smaller towns, appellate mechanisms were established, and evidentiary rules were formalized. Although medieval European law could be morally harsh, with torture and corporal punishment often integrated into procedure, it was highly codified, systematic, and broadly accessible compared to contemporary Mughal or Islamic law. Europe’s legal culture valued consistency, documentation, and the procedural treatment of violence, which allowed it to function across a wider population and laid the foundation for modern Western legal systems.

The superiority of European law, from my perspective, derives from several interconnected qualities. First, it is adaptive and continuously evolving. Unlike Sharia, which is regarded as divinely ordained and largely static, Western law allows for codification of new crimes, creation of civil remedies, and revision of procedural rules. For example, in traditional Sharia criminal law, sexual crimes are largely confined to a single category of zina, and homicide is treated under qisas with very strict rules of retaliation or blood money. By contrast, European-derived systems, and the Indian Penal Code introduced by the British, recognize dozens of sexual offenses, such as rape, assault, harassment, and child exploitation, each with distinct definitions, standards of proof, and punishments. Murder is subdivided into first-degree, second-degree, culpable homicide, and other gradations, allowing courts to calibrate punishment with much greater precision. Second, European law provides broad coverage and uniformity, ensuring that citizens across regions are subject to the same procedural safeguards. The Mughal system, by contrast, left most of the population outside formal judicial reach, relying instead on local and often inconsistent customary arbitration. Third, Western law institutionalizes professionalism in the judiciary and administration, reducing arbitrary enforcement and promoting accountability through documentation, appeals, and oversight.

This advantage becomes even clearer when one considers the colonial experience in South Asia. Scholars such as V.D. Mahajan, whose Jurisprudence remains a standard textbook in Indian and Pakistani law schools, note that the British introduced the first truly comprehensive and codified legal system in the subcontinent. The Indian Penal Code, the Codes of Criminal and Civil Procedure, and the Law of Evidence provided a uniform legal framework, professionalized courts, and procedural safeguards far beyond what was available under Mughal administration. While the Mughal system was sophisticated in its conception, it remained largely inaccessible to the masses, whereas the British system, by design, applied uniformly across vast territories and offered consistent remedies, however imperfectly. In contemporary Pakistan, the persistence of jirga and panchayat systems reflects the limits of state enforcement and the survival of precolonial arbitration mechanisms. Yet these informal systems often produce outcomes inconsistent with codified law, highlighting the practical advantage of a structured, Western-style legal system.

From an informed layman’s perspective, then, the story of legal history is one of contrast between codification in principle and codification in practice. Mughal and other pre-modern legal systems were sophisticated on paper but extremely limited in reach. Sharia law provided a coherent moral and religious framework, but its criminal categories were rigid, leaving much discretion to local authorities. Medieval European law, building on Roman legal principles, combined codification with broader territorial coverage, professional administration, and procedural rigor. This foundation of adaptability, uniformity, and systematic enforcement not only gave European law superiority in practice but also allowed it to evolve into the modern legal systems of the West. The experience of the Indian subcontinent further reinforces this point: the introduction of British codified law provided the first comprehensive system capable of applying consistent justice across a vast and diverse population, demonstrating the practical and structural advantages of Western legal principles. Concrete examples, such as the detailed treatment of sexual crimes and homicide under the Indian Penal Code versus the single-category approach in traditional Sharia, make this superiority especially clear.