SG Tushar Mehta says Vedas are not a direct source of law, explains evolution of Hindu jurisprudence
New Delhi, July 11
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta on Saturday said that the Vedas are not a direct source of law but serve as the oldest written repository of wisdom, offering guidance on living in harmony with one's surroundings and inner self.
Delivering a lecture on the relationship between ancient scriptures and modern law, SG Mehta said Hindu law primarily emanated from the Smritis, including the Yajnavalkya Smriti, Manu Smriti, Narada Smriti and Parasara Smriti, which he described as legal commentaries authored by ancient scholars specialising in law.
Tracing the evolution of Hindu jurisprudence, the Solicitor General said that two principal schools of Hindu law, Mitakshara and Dayabhaga, have existed in India since ancient times, at least before 700 AD.
According to Mehta, the Mitakshara school, developed by the scholar Vijnanesvara, is based on the Yajnavalkya Smriti and not the Manu Smriti, contrary to what he described as a common misconception. He said the Mitakshara school has historically been followed across most of India, while the Dayabhaga school, based on the Manu Smriti, was prevalent in the erstwhile Bengal and Assam regions.
He asserted that claims suggesting Hindu law is based entirely on the Manu Smriti are factually incorrect, as the Mitakshara school remains the dominant tradition across the country.
Explaining the distinction between the two schools, Mehta said the Dayabhaga system linked inheritance to the ability to perform pind daan, referring to the offering of rice cakes to ancestors during shraddha ceremonies, making the concept comparatively restrictive.
In contrast, he said, the Mitakshara school adopted a broader and more dynamic interpretation by recognising inheritance rights by birth. He observed that while ancient texts did not use the term "DNA", the concept underlying pind reflected biological lineage, adding that the principle continues to exist in modern Hindu law through the concept of coparcenary rights acquired by birth.
The Solicitor General also said that Hindu legal traditions demonstrate an openness and flexibility in interpreting religious legal texts that, according to him, is not found in other religious scriptures. Citing the concept of adoption (dattak), he said multiple interpretations of the relevant texts illustrate the dynamic nature of Hindu legal principles.
He further praised the framers of ancient legal texts for introducing the concept of prohibited degrees of relationship governing marriage. According to Mehta, these principles, formulated around 700 AD, continue to find recognition in contemporary statutory law enacted by Parliament.
Concluding his address, Mehta said that while many branches of law evolved over time, India's criminal law framework remained substantially rooted in colonial legislation. He said the British had framed criminal laws for their "subjects", which continued after Independence in the form of the Indian Penal Code. He added that the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in 2023 marked a shift towards a criminal code framed for the country's "citizens", with provisions reorganised to reflect the priorities of a sovereign democratic republic.
— ANI
Reader Comments
Interesting lecture but I wonder: if the British criminal laws were for 'subjects', how much of the colonial mindset still lingers in our judiciary? SG Mehta's point about the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita being for 'citizens' is a good start, but implementation matters more than renaming. Respectfully, we need more than symbolic changes.
As someone from Bengal, I appreciate the mention of Dayabhaga school. It's true that in our region, pind daan tradition deeply influenced inheritance laws. But I think both schools have strengths - Mitakshara's birthright is more progressive for modern times. Good to see SC officer discussing these nuances in public. 🇮🇳
Coming from a Western legal system, this is fascinating. The concept of coparcenary rights by birth and prohibition of certain marriage degrees in 700 AD shows advanced thinking. But I wonder how these ancient principles interact with modern constitutional values like gender equality? The Hindu Succession Act amendments were a big step forward.
SG Mehta is spot on about the dynamic nature of Hindu law. The flexibility in adoption rules (dattak) proves that our tradition was never rigid like some assume. This is important for countering the narrative that Hinduism is monolithic. But I'd add that we must ensure these interpretations don't justify regressive practices in name of tradition.
Good to see our legal traditions being researched and discussed at high levels. The distinction between Vedas as wisdom and Smritis as actual law is important. My concern: in modern courts, how much weight do these ancient principles actually
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.