SOURCES OF HINDU LAW

by

What are the Sources of Hindu Law ?

Lets talk about the sources of Hindu Law briefly, from Introduction to Conclusion.

Table of Content:
1. Introduction
2. Meaning of Hindu Law
3. Origin of Hindu Law
4. Sources of Hindu Law
1. Ancient Sources
i. Sruti
ii. Smriti
iii. Digest and Commentaries; and
iv. Custom.
2. Modern Sources
i. Equity, Justice and Good Conscience
ii. Precedent
iii. Legislation
5. Conclusion
6. References

Introduction:

Hindu system of law has the most ancient pedigree of the known systems of law. Hindu law is about 6000 years old if the Vedic period is accepted to be 4000 to 1000 B.C. Hindu law, despite the fact that before the advent of modern era, there was no direct law making machinery, has shown remarkable adaptability. The study of sources of Hindu Law is the study of various phases of its development which gave it new drive and vigour, enabled it to conform to the changing needs.

In this article we breaks down the sources of Hindu Law, and at where it comes from and how it has evolved. Here, in this article we are discussed about the Meaning, Origin, Ancient Sources, Modern Sources, Legislation, Case Laws etc in simpler way.

Meaning of Hindu Law:

Law as understood by the Hindu is a branch of Dharma. Its ancient framework is the law of the Smritis. The Smritis are institutes which enounce rules of Dharma and the traditional definition of Dharma is: “What is followed by those learned in the Vedas and what is approved by the conscience of virtuous who are exempt from hatred and inordinate affection”.

Whenever the laws of India admit the operation of a personal law the rights and obligations of a Hindu are determined by Hindu Law that is his traditional law, sometimes called the law of his religion, subject to the exception that any part of that law may be modified or abrogated by statue. Hindu Law, it is now generally agreed, has the most ancient pedigree of any known system of jurisprudence.

The study of any developed legal system requires a critical and analytical examination of its fundamental elements and conceptions as also the practical and concrete details which go to make the contents or body of the law.

Origin of Hindu Law:

Hindu Law is about 6000 years old, if the Vedic period is accepted to be 4000 to 1000 B.C. In this span of 6000 years, it has passed through various phases. The origin of Hindu Law is from Vedas and Dharma-Granthas. Shruti, Smritis are the main sources of Hindu Law also Dharma-Granthas and religious writing scripts.

The sources from which knowledge of Hindu Law is to be derived or the indices of Dharma have been stated by Hindu Jurisprudence. The Veda, the Smriti, the approved usages, and what is agreeable to good conscience according to Manusmriti, the highest authority on this law, the quadruped direct evidence (sources) of Dharma.

Sources of Hindu Law: –

The study of sources of Hindu Law is the study of various phases of its development which gave it new drive and vigour, enabled it to conform to the changing needs. Originally, it came to sub serve the needs of pastoral people and now it has come to sub serve the needs of modern welfare society.

                   It would be convenient to classify the various sources under the following two heads:

  1. Ancient Sources:

     Under this head fall the following four sources:

  1. Sruti;
  2. Smriti;
  3. Digest and Commentaries; and
  4. Custom.

2. Modern Sources:    

Under this head fall the following four sources:

  1. Equity, justice and good conscience;
  2. Precedent; and
  3. Legislation.

         

Ancient Sources:

The ancient sources divided into four sources, which lead the Sruti, Smriti, Digest and Commentaries and Custom. Those sources are covered by Hindu Dharma Granthas, Vedas, Ancient Scripts. The ancient sources include old Written Texts, Ancient Scripts which is are mainly available in the Vedas, Upanishads, etc. Those Scripts and Texts are a collection of prayers, rituals, practices, etc.

          The heads are as follows: –

  1. Sruti:

                   It was an article of belief with the ancient Hindu that his law was Revelation, immutable and eternal. Sruti which strictly means the Vedas was in theory the root and original sources of Dharma. It was the fountain-head of his law. Hindu law considered to be a divine law, a revealed law. The theory is that some of the Hindu sages had attained great spiritual heights, so much so that they could be in direct communion with God.

                   The “Sruti” literally means “What was heard”. The Vedas, thus, contain the divine revelation. The term Sruti stands for four Vedas, which is the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sama Veda and the Atharva Veda, alongwith their respective Brahmanas. The Brahmanas are like appendices to the Vedas which were added later on. They deal with the various ceremonies, rituals and sacrifices. The Vedas are said to be the source of all knowledge. In that view the entire body of Hindu law has emanated from Vedas and since it has emanated from Vedas, Hindu law is a divine law, a divine revelation.

                   The Vedas contain “no statements of law as such, though their statements of facts are occasionally referred to in the Smritis and Commentaries as conclusive evidence of legal usage. The Vedas contain passages alluding to the Brahma, Asura and Gandharva forms of marriage, to the necessity for son, to the Kshetraja, the Dattaka and the son of the appointed daughter, to partition, among sons, and to exclusion of women from inheritance”.

                   The Vedas depict the way of life of our early ancestors. The Upanishad philosophy and the Yoga system had not yet come into existence. These Aryans were a vigorous, robust and unsophisticated people. They were engaged in the pursuit of all that the life and rich land could offer them. At the time two sets of rules existed:

  1. Rules of Customary law. These rules dealt with rights and duties, with right and wrong, though is seems that the emphasis was more on duties and obligations than on rights.
  2. The Vedic Aryans believed that the soul is immortal and the body, its adobe, its mortal and perishable. According to them, the soul of a being suffers or enjoys in the next birth in accordance with good or bad Karmas that what he had done in this world or in this universe. The Yajna was considered to be the way of attaining salvation. To Agni the Vedic Aryans offers everything that was dear to him, ghee, milk, argha, cloths, corn, cattle so that they could enjoy the life not merely in this world or this universe, but in the next world or universe also.

In sum, the Sruti (or the Vedas) depict the life of our early ancestors, their way of life, their way of thinking, their thoughts.

ii. Smritis:

Smritis is ushered in the era of the systematic exposition of the rules and principles of law. This is known as the Golden era of the Hindus.

The word “Smritis” literally means “What has been remembered” or “Recollection”. The Smritis are accepted as precepts emanating that source were couched in the words of Rishis or Sages of antiquity who saw or received the revelations and proclaimed their recollection. The Smritis may be divided into early Smritis and the later Smritis. The former are called the Dharmasutras and the later on, the Dharmashastras.  What has happened seems to be thus: immediately after the Vedic period the need of expounding the meaning contained in the Vedas arose. The Vedas were to be understand in the light of the new needs of the society which had made further progress from agro-pastoral society.

  1. Dharmasutras:

          The Dharmasutras were mostly written in prose, though a few of them were written both in prose and verse. The Dharmasutras generally bear the names of their authors. In some cases, the Shakha or school to which the author belonged is also indicated. The approximate period of the Dharmasutras is usually reckoned to be between 800 and 200 B.C. The main Dharmasutras are: Gautama, Baudhayana, Apastamba, Vasistha, Vishnu, Harita.

    Gautama: Gautama belonged to the Sama Veda school. Gautam’s Dharmasutras is considered to be the oldest of the extant Dharmasutras. Written in prose, it deals extensively with legal and religious matter. Gautama attaches importance to tradition, practice and usages of the people of all walks of life. Hardatta (AD 12 Century) wrote a commentary called the Mitakshara on the Gautama Dharmasutras.

    Baudhayana: Baudhayana belonged to the Krishna Yajurveda school. He probably lived on the Eastern coast of Andhra Pradesh. The Baudhayana Dharmasutras is not available in its integrated form. Baudhayana deals with the numerous subjects, including marriage, sonship, adoption and inheritance. He also refers t the custom of people living in the North and to the custom and excise duties.

   Apastamba:  Apastamba belonged to the Krishna Yajurveda school. His language is very forceful and full of clarity. It seems that in his work he had embodied most of the customs of his part of the country. He very forcefully rejected the Prajapatya forms of marriage. He emphasized that the Vedas were the source of all knowledge.

   Vasistha: Vasistha belonged to Northern India. He is concerned with the Rigveda. He holds the view that the custom of the Aryavarta must be everywhere acknowledged as authoritative. Like Apastamba, he recognized only six forms of marriage and excludes from his reckoning the Paisacha and the Prajapatya. He permits the marriage of virgin widows. He deals with the marriage, sonship, adoption, inheritance, sources of law and jurisdiction of courts. Vasistha gives an interesting description of Aryavarta (the country of Aryas). Vasistha stresses the importance of usage and describes it as a supplement to law.

   Vishnu: Vishnu is another sutrakar whose collection of aphorisms is entitled to consideration among the ancient works of this class which have come down to our time. Vishnu’s work, the Vishnu Smriti, is partly in an aphoristic style and partly in verse. It deals with the criminal law, civil law, marriage, sonship, adoption, inheritance, debt., interest, treasure trove and various other topics. Vishnu is one of the smritikars mentioned in the enumeration of Yajnavalkya but an examination of the extant work clearly shows that its author ha copiously borrowed from the Manusmriti and other standard works and must have adopted as the basis of his work an ancient collection of aphorisms Vishnusutra. He denounces atheism and the study of irreligious books. The Vishnu Smriti is closely connected with the Manu Smriti primarily, and with the Yajnavalkya Smriti secondarily.

   Harita: Harita is another sutrakar whose work deserves special notice. One of the most quoted of the early exponents of law. Harita work is known as Harita-Smriti. His treatment follows the same pattern that is adopted by the early sutrakars. Harita is freely quoted also by the commentaries. The work is not available in its original form and we have to rest content with the quotations of the Harita Smriti available in other Smritis, Digest and Commentaries. From Visvarupa down to the latest writers on Dharmashastras, Harita is quoted most profusely: the Dharmasutras of Baudhayana, Apastamba and Vasistha quote him. The Harita Dharmasutras deals with the source of Dharma, Brahmacharya, Snataks, householder, prohibition about food, impurity on birth and death, duties of kings, rules of statecraft, court procedure, various principles of law, duties of husband and wife, various kinds of penances, expiatory prayers and many other matters.

b) Dharmashastras:

The later Smritis or Dharmashastras are mostly in metrical verses, and are later in age than the Dharmasutras. They are in a sense based on the Dharmasutras, but they are not metrical renditions of the Dharmasutras. They deal with the subject-matters in a very systematic manner. Most of the Dharmashastras are divided into three parts which are: Achara, Vyavahara and Prayaschitta. The first deals with the rules od religious observances. The second part deals with civil law and the last part deals with the penance or expiation.

The early Smritikaras laid more emphasis on the subject-matter of the first and third parts, while the later Smritikaras have exhaustively considered rules of positive law. Some Smritikaras like Narada, deal only with the civil law. In the Vyavahara part, the Smritikaras have dealt with law under 18 titles and 132 sub-titles. They have discussed rules of both substantive law and procedural law.

The Yajnavalkya Smriti gives a list of twenty sages as law-givers, viz, Manu, Atri, Vishnu, Harita, Yajnavalkya, Usanas, Angaris, Yama, Apastamba, Samavarta, Katyayana, Brihaspati, Parasara, Vyasa, Sankh, Likhita, Daksha, Gautama, Satatapa and Vasistha. According to the Mitakshara, the enumeration is illustrative and not exhaustive.

Manu Smriti: The Manu Smriti has been all along considered to be supreme authority in the entire country. However, we do not know the identity of the person who compiled this work. In fact, we have not been able to establish the identity of this great sage whose teaching the Manu Smriti contains. We know that the name of Manu has been mentioned from the earliest. Sometimes he is referred to as Vridha (Old) Manu, sometimes as Brihat (Great) Manu, sometimes as Adi Manava (First patriarch).

According to Kane: “It is almost impossible to say who composed the Manu Smriti. It goes without saying that the mythical Manu, progenitor or mankind, mentioned even in the Rigveda, could not have composed it. What motives could have induced the unknown author to palm it off in the name of the mythical Manu and suppress his identity, it is difficult to say. One motive may have been to invest the work with a halo of anquity and authoritativeness”.

The extant Manu Smriti is divided into 12 Chapters and contains 2694 slokas. In the eighth Chapter are stated rules on eighteen titles of law which include both civil and criminal law. The approximate date of the compilation of Manu Smriti is placed at 200 B.C.

Yajnavalkya Smriti: The Yajnavalkya Smriti comes after the Manu Smriti. It is substantially based on Manu Smriti, though the Yajnavalkya Smriti is more synthesized, concise and logical. Yajnavalkya belonged to the Shukla Yajurveda and is closely connected with the Brihadaranyak Upanishad. Yajnavalkya belonged to Mithila (Northern Bihar). The Yajnavalkya Smriti is divided into three sections. All topics are arranged in their proper places and repetition is avoided. Almost all subjects found in the Manu Smriti are dealt with by Yajnavalkya in a precise manner. The Yajnavalkya Smriti deals with rules of procedural law in details. Yet, the law of procedure is not bogged down in arid technicalities. The approximate date of the Yajnavalkya Smriti is the beginning of the Christian era.

Narada Smriti: The Narada Smriti is the last of the three metrical Dharmashastras whose complete text is available to us. Narada seems to have belonged to Nepal. The approximate date of the work is of 200 A.D. This is the first legal code which is mostly free from moral and religious feelings. Narada deals only with the Vyavahara and does not deal with the Achara and Prayaschitta. The work is based on the Smritis of Manu and Yajnavalkya though on some matters Narada markedly differs from them. The Narada Smriti is outstanding in this that it deals with the law of procedure and pleadings in detail and with remarkable clarity. The work is divided into two parts. The first part deals with judicature (in three chapters he deals with the principle of judicial procedure and the judicial assemble) and the second part is deal with eighteen titles of law.

Mimansakaras: The Mimansa rules of interpretation were developed to expound the meaning of the Vedas particularly of the ritual portions. Jamini’s Mimansa is mainly critical commentary on the ritual portions of the Vedas. It provides for interpretation of the rituals and the solution of doubts and discrepancies in regard to the Vedic text caused by the discordant explanations of opposite school. It mostly uses the logical method.

          The Mimansa rules also lay down where individual interpretation is not fettered by mandatory rule; the judge has the freedom to accept that construction which is supportable solely by the reason of law. Celebrooke very pertinently said, “The logic of Mimansa is the logic of the law”.

          Jamini applied the rules of interpretation only to the ritual portion of Vedas. The question whether they apply to the Vyavahara portion has been a subject of debate among scholars. There is no doubt that they have been used by the Commentators and the Digest-writers in interpreting the Vyavahara portion of the Smritis and in reconciling the conflicting Smritis text.

  Factum Valet:  The doctrine, Quod fieri non debet factum valet, which means “What ought not to be done is valid when done” is ascribed to Jamini. Jimutavahana has given expression to this doctrine in the following words, “A fact cannot be altered by hundred texts”.

Jimutavahana applied this doctrine to the Smriti rules which prohibit a father from alienating his self-acquired immovable property without the consent of his sons by saying that though such an alienation is prohibited, but if made, it will be valid, as hundred texts cannot alter fact.

iii. Digests and Commentaries: 

In this period, as in others, with the new social changes, legal rules underwent a change. The rules of law enunciated in the Smritis were not always clear cut and they did not cover all situations. This was not all. One Smriti differed from another, and sometimes in the same Smriti, there were conflicting texts.

The Digests and Commentaries cover a period of about one thousand years from 700 B.C. to 700 A.D. The last of the commentaries is by Narada Pandit on the Vishnu-Dharmasutra called the Vaijayanti. It was written in 17th century, till the 12th century, the general tendency was to write commentaries (tika) on a particular Smriti, but from the 12th century onward the trend was to write Digests (Nibandha) on several Smritis, and thereby to attempt to synthesis all the topics in the Smritis. However, even in the earlier period, the commentaries, with a view to introducing order by synthesizing the chaotic mess of Smritis rules and principles, adopted the style of digest writing. “The authors of the Commentaries and Digests assumed that the Smritis constitute a single body of law, one part of which supplant the other; every part of which, if properly understood, is capable of being reconciled with the other. They modified and supplemented rules in the Smritis, in part by means of their own reasoning and in part in the light of usages that had grown up.”

Commentaries on Manu Smriti:  Most honored commentaries on the Manu Smriti are by Medhatithi, Govindraja and KullukaBhatta. Ashaya and Vishnuvamin also wrote commentaries on the Manu Smriti, but they are not available to us.

Medhatithi: The appropriate date of this commentary is 825-900 A.D. This is the earliest extant commentary on the Manu Smriti. On the whole, Medhatithi’s comments are dependable and instructive, although at times he engages in caustic subtlety. Most of his broad propositions are the result of his reflective generalization. He is a perfect master of the Mimansa rules, and his legal acumen is admirable. At this he resorts to general propositions and exposes himself to the attack of begging the question. The name of his commentary is the Manubhashya.

Govindraja: The Manutika of Govindraja was written in 11th or 12th century A.D. According to Dr. Jolly, the work is very useful for the interpretation of the text, as it contains a full paraphrase of the text and is marked by conciseness of expression and philosophical accuracy.

KullukaBhatta: The Manvarthamuktavali by Kullaka is the most famous of all commentaries on Manu. According to Kane. “Kulluka’s commentary is concise and lucid and his remarks are always to the point. He avoids all unnecessary discussion and is never prolix. He was, however, not original. He drew upon the commentaries of Medhatithi and Govindraja and incorporated a great deal from them into his work without acknowledgement.”

Commentaries on Yajnavalkya Smriti: Commentaries on the Yajnavalkya Smriti are as numerous as on the Manu Smriti. Of these, mention may be made of commentaries of Visvarupa, Vijnaneshwara, Apararka, Shulapani and Mitra Mishra.

Visvarupa: Visvarupa’s commentary named as Balakrida is the earliest commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti and belongs to 9th century A.D.

Vijnaneshwara: Of all the commentaries, Vijnaneshwara’s commentary, the Mitakshara, is by far the most important and the most outstanding one. The age of the work is considered to be the later part of the 11th century.

Apararka: Aparaditya is another important commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti written in 12th century A.D. by Apararka.

Mitra Mishra: Mitra Mishra wrote commentary on Yajnavalkya and also a separate treatise. Both of them are known as Viramitrodaya. The work was probably composed between 1610-1640 A.D.

iv. Custom:

It is a singular contribution of the Historical School of jurisprudence that it conclusively established that in early societies, custom was the main vehicle of legal development. It has been seen earlier that though the Vedas and the Smritis are said to contain Divine Revelation, in reality, they incorporated mostly the customs of their times. After the law was reduced into writing by the Digests and Commentaries. Ancient custom is generally regarded as a just foundation of many laws in every system of jurisprudence and for reasons grounded on principle and justice.

Requirements of a Valid Custom:

  1. Custom should be ancient.
  2. Custom should be continuous.
  3. Custom should be certain.
  4. Custom should not be unreasonable.
  5. It should not be immoral
  6. Custom must not be opposed to public policy.
  7. It should not be opposed to law.

Kinds of Custom:

                   The Smritikaras mentioned four types of customs which are: Local custom, Custom of caste or community, Family  custom and Guild custom.

           Local Custom:  A local custom is a custom which prevails in a locality, in a geographical area, not necessarily confined to an administrative division or district, and is binding on all persons in the area within which it prevails. It is different from a caste custom or family custom.

           Family Custom: Family custom is binding only on the members of the family. As early as 1868, the Privy Council said that custom binding only on members of family has been long recognized as Hindu Law. A family custom different from the law or custom of the locality in which the family is living can be proved and is enforceable.

           Caste or Community Custom:  By far the largest area of custom in personal law of the Hindus is covered by caste or community custom. A caste or community custom is binding on all the members of the caste or community, wherever they may be.

           Guild Custom: The guild custom, i.e. custom of traders and merchants, is not a part of personal law of the Hindus. 

2. Modern Sources:

           Among the modern sources of Hindu law are included Equity, Justice and Good conscience; Precedent and Legislation. These sources existed even in the Shastric Hindu law, though in a different form. The main theme of the Modern Sources of Hindu Law enshrined various equity, justice and good conscience, precedent and legislation.

  1. Equity, Justice and Good conscience

     The ancient Hindu law has its own version of the doctrine of Equity, Justice and Good conscience. According to Gautama, “In cases for which no rule is given, that course must be followed of which at least ten persons who are well instructed, skilled in reasoning and free from covetousness approve.” Yajnavalkya said that when on a matter there were conflicting rules of law, the matter should be decided on the basis of Nyaya (Natural equity and justice). Katyayana also said that whatever is inconsistent with equity and justice, that be avoided. In the Mimansa, Jaimini propounded the doctrine of Aridesha, i.e. where a principle has been laid down with reference to a case it could be applied to analogous cases.

              In its modern version, equity, justice and good conscience as a source of law owes its origin to the beginning of the British administration of justice in India. The charters of the several High Courts established by the British Government directed that when the law was silent on a matter, they should decide the cases in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience. Justice, equity and good conscience have been generally interpreted to mean rules of English law on the analogous matter as modified to suit the Indian conditions and circumstances (Case Law: Waghela Raji v. Sheikh Masludin (1887)).

ii. Precedent:

We know practically nothing of the judicial decisions of ancient times. The doctrine of Stare Decisis and precedent are essentially a gift of the British administration of justice in India. Precedent is called to be a source of Hindu law in two senses:

Firstly, practically all the important principles and rules of Hindu law have now been embodied in case law. In such matters, recourse to original sources is not necessary. Reference to leading decision is enough. In this sense, precedent or case is the source by a large, of most of the rules and principles of Hindu law.

Secondly, precedent is a source of law in the sense that by the process of judicial interpretation, doctrines, principles and rules of law stand modified or altogether new principles, doctrines and rules have been introduced in the body of Hindu law. For these principles, doctrines and rules, the source of authority is precedent. It is in this second sense that we here concerned with the precedent as a source of law.

According to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, states that Binding jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. It is permissible for the High court to overrule the decision of the Apex Court on the ground that the Supreme Court laid down the legal position without considering any other point. It is not only a matter of discipline for the High Courts of India, it is mandate of Constitution as provided in article 141 that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India, Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagadeeshan, (2002) 2 SCC 420: AIR 2002 SC 681. Lohar Amrit v. Doshi Jayantilal, (1960) 3 SCR 842.

iii. Legislation:

Legislation is a modern source of Hindu law. As a matter of policy, the Government during the British rule was show and cautions to change Hindu law by legislative intervention. However, the legislature modifications till August 15, 1947, are not insignificant. Some of the statutes which have affected modification in Hindu law, either by reforming Hindu law or by superseding rules of Hindus, may be noted here. The earliest statue was passed in 1850, the Caste disabilities removal act. It was followed by Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856, Hindu Wills Acts, 1870, Hindu Transfer of Bequest Act, 1914, Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930, Hindu Inheritance (Removal And Disabilities) Act, 1928, Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, Arya Marriage Validation Act, 1937, Hindu Women’s Right to Separate Maintenance And Residence Act, 1946, Hindu Marriage (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1946, Hindu Marriage Validity Act, 1949.

There was a good deal of vocal opposition to Hindu Code Bill by an orthodox section of Hindus. Some opposed it on the ground that it would be impossible to give legislative form to the specious and complicated structure of Hindu law. But, by and large, the opposition was forming the uniformed and orthodox section of Hindu society. The Hindu Code Bill remained on the anvil for a considerable time. It was introduced in the Interim Parliament, but no progress could be made, and it lapsed with the dissolution of Parliament. The Government ultimately decided to split up the code and pass it in installments. Thus, came into existence the four major enactments of codified Hindu Law, viz., 1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, 2. Hindu Succession Act, 1956, 3. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. By these enactments of codified Hindu law some fundamental changes have been introduced, though a total break from the past has not been made.

Conclusion:

Hindu system of law has the most ancient pedigree of the known systems of law. It is a branch of Dharma. In conclusion, the sources of Hindu law are diverse and multifaceted, reflecting the rich culture and historical tapestry of Hinduism.

The primary sources include the Vedas, which are the oldest sacred texts, and the Smritis, which provides guidelines for ethical and moral conduct. The Vedas stand as the ancient pillars, their verses echoing the spiritual and philosophical foundations of Hindu thought.

Yet, Hindu law is not merely a relic of the past: it is a living entity, shaped by the customs that breathe life into its principles and the judicial interpretations that adapt its tenets to the contemporary landscape. This intricate tapestry, woven from sacred texts, customary practices, and legal precedents, reflects the vibrant and dynamic nature of Hindu jurisprudence.

References:

  1. Modern Hindu Law: Dr. Paras Diwan and Peeyushi Diwan, 24th Edition, ISBN: 978-93-80231-15-0
  2. Mulla Hindu Law: S.T. Desai, 16th Edition, ISBN: 81-7118-024-8
  3. The Constitution of India: P.M. Baksi, 6th Edition, ISBN: 81-7534-418-0

Post Drafted By:

A. Nr. Dev

Leave a Comment