Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: Hindu Law Not Based on Manusmriti, But Mitakshara
Quick Look
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that Hindu law is largely based on the 'Mitakshara' school of thought, derived from 'Yajnavalkya Smriti', not 'Manusmriti'.
- He explained that 'Mitakshara' is prevalent across most of India, except Assam and Bengal, which follow the 'Dayabhaga' school.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta delivered a lecture on 'Ancient Wisdom & Legal Intelligence', clarifying misconceptions about Hindu law.
File photo: SG Tushar Mehta (Picture credit: ANI)
NEW DELHI: Solicitor general Tushar Mehta on Saturday said associating Hindu law with 'Manusmriti' was a misconception as an overwhelming number of Hindus, except those in Assam and Bengal, followed the 'Mitakshara' school of thought.
Delivering a lecture on 'Ancient Wisdom & Legal Intelligence', Mehta said, "People who allege that Hindu law is based on 'Manusmriti' are factually wrong since most of India follows 'Mitakshara' school of thought which is based on 'Yajnavalkya Smriti'."
He added, "There are two theories of Hindu law prevalent in India since time immemorial, at least since prior to 700 AD. The first school of thought in Hindu law is 'Mitakshara' school of thought and the second school of thought is 'Dayabhaga'."
The SG said the 'Mitakshara' school of thought, developed by Vijnaesvara, was solely based on 'Yajnavalkya Smriti' and not 'Manusmriti' as was wrongly believed.
He said it was prevalent in the entire country except Bengal and Assam, which followed 'Dayabhaga' school of thought, based on 'Manusmriti'.
Distinguishing between the two schools of thought based on rights of inheritance as provided in scriptures, he said, "Inheritance in 'Dayabhaga' school of thought used to be applicable only to those who could perform 'pind daan'. According to this system, 'pind' would mean rice cake offered in 'shraadh' ceremony to the ancestors. This was a very restrictive meaning in the 'Dayabhaga' school of thought prevalent in two states."
He said the 'Mitakshara' school was liberal and more dynamic as it gave the right of inheritance by birth, considering 'pind' as DNA. This concept is still in existence as a coparcener in a Hindu family gets the right of inheritance by birth.
On adoption, Mehta presented four prevailing interpretations of "right to adopt' to argue Hindu scripture-based laws were capable of being interpreted in a dynamic way.
He also praised ancient wisdom for devising 'prohibited degrees of relationships' between man and woman and said the system devised much prior to 700 AD had been approved by Parliament while codifying the Hindu law on marriage.
