'Vedas Are Not a Source of Law, Hindu Law Emerged From Smritis': SG Tushar Mehta Explains Ancient Wisdom and India's Legal Tradition

New Delhi: Solicitor-General of India Tushar Mehta delivered a lecture on "Ancient Wisdom and Legal Intelligence" on Saturday, discussing how India's ancient scriptures relate to the formation of Hindu law. During his speech, he discussed the role of the Vedas, the Smritis, the two schools of Hindu law, and how legal philosophy evolved over ages, before finishing with reflections on the transition from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Vedas Guide Life, Smritis Form the Basis of Hindu Law 

Mehta began by emphasizing that the Vedas are not the direct source of any law. According to him, the Vedas teach individuals how to live in peace with both their environment and their inner selves. He identified the Vedas as the world's oldest written source of wisdom.

He emphasized that Hindu law is derived from the Smritis, which include works like the Yajnavalkya Smriti, Manu Smriti, Narad Smriti, and Parasara Smriti. He claimed that these were commentary produced by ancient legal professors.

The Solicitor General stated that two schools of Hindu law have existed in India since time immemorial, or at least before 700 AD: the Mitakshara school and the Dayabhaga school.

He explained that, contrary to popular belief, the Mitakshara school, founded by scholar Vijnanesvara, is entirely based on the Yajnavalkya Smriti rather than the Manu Smriti.

According to Mehta, the Mitakshara school has historically been followed over practically the whole country, with the exception of the former Bengal and Assam provinces, where the Dayabhaga school, based on the Manu Smriti, has traditionally and continues to be practiced.

He stated that those who believe Hindu law is only based on the Manu Smriti are inaccurate, as the majority of India follows the Mitakshara school, which is derived from the Yajnavalkya Smriti.

Mitakshara, Inheritance Rights and the Evolution of Law

Mehta explained the difference between the two schools, stating that the Dayabhaga school tied inheritance rights to the ability to do 'pind daan', which refers to the offering of rice cakes during shraddha ceremonies for ancestors. He described it as a limited interpretation that was followed in the two regions where Dayabhaga was dominant.

Mehta further stated that no other religion scriptures have the same level of openness and flexibility in interpreting legal ideas as Hindu scriptures. Referring to the right to adopt ('Dattak'), he stated that there are four diverse interpretations within Hindu legal system, proving that the scriptures have always allowed for flexible interpretation.

He also complimented ancient scholars for their foresight in including the concept of degrees of banned relationships into religious legal texts. He stated that these restrictions, which forbid marriage between close relatives, were established as early as 700 AD. He went on to say that these ideals are still represented in the laws that Parliament passes today.

In contrast, he characterized the Mitakshara school as more open and vigorous. It guaranteed a person's right to inherit at birth, interpreting the concept of 'pind' as biological lineage, which he characterized as the equivalent of DNA, despite the fact that ancient scriptures did not use that modern term. He went on to argue that this mentality is still in place today, because a coparcener in a Hindu home is born with rights.

Concluding his lecture, Mehta said that while civil law has transformed over time, the penal law remained substantially the same as that framed by the British, who designed it for their "subjects" in colonial India. According to him, the Indian Penal Code persisted even after independence, and it was not until 2023 that the current administration presented the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for India's "citizens," reorganizing its provisions to reflect the priorities of a sovereign democratic republic.