Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said equating Hindu law with the Manusmriti is a misconception, stating that most Hindus, except in Assam and Bengal, follow the Mitakshara school of thought. He made the remarks during the lecture, “Ancient Wisdom & Legal Intelligence.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that linking Hindu law with Manusmriti was a misconception, adding that an overwhelming majority of Hindus except those in Assam and Bengal follow the Mitakshara school of thought.
Speaking during a lecture titled “Ancient Wisdom & Legal Intelligence,”
Mehta stated,
“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’.”
ALSO READ: Choosing Arbitrators by Name Undermines Integrity, Parliament Must Act: SG Tushar Mehta
He further said,
“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’.”
Mehta said the Mitakshara school of thought, developed by Vijnanesvara, was grounded in Yajnavalkya Smriti and not in Manusmriti, as was wrongly believed.
He added that this school was followed across the country except Bengal and Assam, where the Dayabhaga school based on Manusmriti prevailed.
Explaining the distinction between the two traditions in terms of inheritance, he remarked that under the Dayabhaga system, inheritance was available only to those who could perform “pind daan.”
In that framework, he said, “pind referred to a rice cake offered during the shraadh ceremony to ancestors, which made the approach relatively restrictive in those two states.“
According to Mehta, the Mitakshara school was more liberal and adaptable because it recognized the right of inheritance by birth. He compared “pind” to “DNA” and said the idea still exists today, since a coparcener in a Hindu family has a birthright in inheritance.
He also presented four interpretations of the right to adopt, arguing that Hindu scripture-based rules can be interpreted dynamically. In addition, he praised ancient Indian legal thought for developing prohibited degrees of relationships between men and women, and said the system built long before 700 AD has been endorsed by Parliament in the process of codifying Hindu law on marriage.