Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta has said that it is factually incorrect to state that Hindu law is based on the Manusmriti, asserting that the legal framework followed by most parts of India is founded on the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, which derives its authority from the Yajnavalkya Smriti.
Mehta made the remarks while delivering a lecture on “Ancient Wisdom and Legal Intelligence” at the Research and Innovation Park of the Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer (FITT) at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi on Saturday.
Explaining the historical evolution of Hindu jurisprudence, the Solicitor General said the Vedas were not a direct source of law but served as texts offering philosophical guidance on harmonious living and were regarded as among the oldest recorded sources of human wisdom. He stated that Hindu law principally evolved from the Smritis, including the Yajnavalkya Smriti, Manusmriti, Narada Smriti and Parashara Smriti, which were legal treatises authored by ancient jurists and scholars.
Mehta said Hindu law historically developed through two principal schools of jurisprudence – the Mitakshara school and the Dayabhaga school. He explained that the Mitakshara school, authored by the jurist Vijnaneshwara, was exclusively based on the Yajnavalkya Smriti and was followed across almost the entire country, except the erstwhile regions of Bengal and Assam, where the Dayabhaga school, founded on the Manusmriti, was traditionally followed.
Referring to succession and inheritance under Hindu law, Mehta said the two schools adopted different legal principles. According to him, the Dayabhaga school historically linked inheritance rights to a person’s ability to perform pind daan, the ritual offering made to ancestors during shraddha ceremonies, making the concept of inheritance comparatively restrictive.
In contrast, he said, the Mitakshara school recognised inheritance rights by birth and adopted a broader interpretation of pind, comparing it with the modern concept of DNA, although the ancient scriptures did not use that terminology. He added that this principle continues to be reflected in the concept of coparcenary under modern Hindu law, under which a coparcener acquires an interest in ancestral property by birth.
The Solicitor General further stated that Hindu legal texts have historically permitted dynamic interpretation. Referring to the concept of prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage, he observed that restrictions governing marriages within specified relationships had been recognised in Hindu scriptures since before 700 AD and were subsequently incorporated by Parliament while codifying Hindu personal law.
He also referred to the legal principles governing adoption, stating that Hindu scriptures recognised multiple interpretations of the right to adopt, which demonstrated the flexibility and evolving nature of Hindu jurisprudence.
Speaking on criminal law reforms, Mehta observed that despite the evolution of various branches of law, India’s criminal justice system had for decades continued to operate substantially under the framework introduced during British rule. He noted that the Indian Penal Code had originally been enacted by the colonial administration to govern its subjects and continued to remain in force after Independence.
Mehta said the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, marked a significant shift in India’s criminal law framework, stating that the legislation had been enacted to serve the needs of the citizens of a sovereign democratic republic and that its provisions had been reorganised to reflect contemporary legislative priorities.
The post Hindu law based on Mitakshara, not Manusmriti: SG Tushar Mehta appeared first on India Legal.