....Previous

It is well known that in Jaimini’s Mimamsa-Sutras, we find discussions regarding various principles of interpretation. Some of these principles, as evident from the classification mentioned above, are primarily intended for interpretation of texts in general. Such general rules like Sruti, Linga, Vakya, Prakarana, as well as atidesha, badha, uha, etc. are supplemented by certain specific illustrative rules, which have been designated as nyayas.

There are certain basic and general axioms which are indispensable for interpreting any text in any subject. Hence these principles are applicable even in the cases of legal treatises, in addition to literary and other texts. These are:

1. Every word and sentence must have some meaning and purpose (the sarthkya axiom);
2. Where one rule or proposition would suffice, more must not be assumed (the laghava axiom);
3. To a word or to a sentence occurring at one and the same place a double meaning should not be attached (the arthaikata axiom);
4. If a word or sentence which, on the face of it, purports to express a subordinate idea clashed with the principle idea, the former must be adjusted to the latter or altogether disregarded (the gunapradhana axiom);
5. Contradiction between words and sentences is not to be presumed where it is possible to reconcile them (the samanjasya axiom);
6. When there is real contradiction, one of the contradictory matters may be adopted as option (the vikalpa axiom).²⁰

Besides these general rules, we find certain special rules which are applicable to Smrtis and usages. Some of these are mentioned below:

(a)   The authoritativeness of the Smrti law is a matter of inference, because the formulators of it are the same those of the Vedas.

(b) If there occurs a conflict between a Smrti text and a Vedic text, the latter must prevail.

(c) Established usage has the force of law whether within the limits of the sastra or not.

(d) If there be two conflicting usages, that which has the support of the sastra is to prevail.²²

It should be mentioned here that while Jaimini and the other Mimamsakas have suggested numerous such principles, I am mentioning here only a few, which are specially relevant for the case of Hindu law. In Mimamsa-Sutras we notice some maxims regarding the determination of word meaning, which have been used for legal purposes in later periods. Firstly, it is stated that in the same passage a word occurring once cannot be taken both in its primary and secondary senses. In Jimutavahana’s Dayabhaga, we notice the application of this principle. There it has been held, in conformity with the above maxim, that the word ‘mother’ cannot ordinarily be taken to include the step mother also. Secondly, Mimamsa suggests that the words of a text ought to be taken ordinarily in their plain meaning. But for establishing harmony with other texts and for reasonable interpretation, a word may be taken in its metaphorical sense. In Dayabhaga, we find that the word ‘son’ is used to mean an heir in its extended sense or upalaksana. Thirdly, a principle of law laid down with reference to one case may be applied to other analogous cases. This principle is applied in Dattaka Chandrika of Devanna Bhatta, where the law meant for khetraja has been applied also for dattaka or adopted sons. Fourthly, in Jaimini’s Mimamsa-Sutras we notice some important instructions regarding property management, which are quite relevant for Hindu law. In the Sixth Book, it has been mentioned that “one has the disposing power of which he is the owner, because he has no power over others”.²³Nilakantha interprets and applies the principle implying that the whole earth cannot be given away by king of the world; neither the (whole) Mandala (dependency by the ruler of that dependency). Nilakantha also refers to the Sarvadaksina-nyaya of Mimamsa in this context. similarly, while discussing the matters regarding the property-shares of members of joint family, Nilakantha has used the Dehalidipaka-nyaya, which suggests the possibility of serving double purpose at a time.²⁴From similar Mimamsa deliberations, several instructions regarding property-management can be derived:

1. property can never be in abeyance;
2. property must be owned by some person;
3. everyone is capable of acquiring property;
4. property can be alienated by sale, gift, death, degradation and change of relation.

Regarding the qualifications for performing an action or sacrifice, the Mimamsakas hold that poverty or loss of any limb cannot regarded as disqualifications. Regarding the competency of women there is a clear mention of the Mimamsa-Sutras that “the view of Badarayana is that it refers to a class without distinction; therefore a women is also included.”²⁵  This shows that not only Jaimini supports the inclusion of women but also strengthens his view by mentioning the opinion of Badarayana in this context.

From the foregoing discussions it becomes evident that at least in some cases the Mimasakas directly mention some principles which have legal consequences, whereas in many other cases there are some tacit suggestions which have been interpreted and explored by later writers on the related subject. The impact of the Mimamsa maxims can be found in the writings of many eminent scholars of Indian tradition, specially those concerned with the Dharma-sastras and legal treatises. Special mention of the Mimamsa principles can be found in the commentary of Manu by Medhatithi, in the commentary on Yajnavalkya by Aparaka, in the Mitaksara by Vijnaneswara, in Dayabhaga of Nilakantha, in the Dattaka Chandrika of Devanna Bhatta, in the Dattaka Mimamsa of Nanda Pandit and many other subsequent writers. It is not possible to mention here all those details, which have been elaborately discussed by K.L. Sarkar in his Tagore Law Lectures on The Mimamsa Rules of Interpretation as applied to Hindu Law.

As an example of the usage of the Mimamsa principles by later writers, I may mention that while enunciating the principles of the law of adoption, Nilakantha and Nanda Pandit differ in their interpretations of the Mimamsa rules. We notice that Nanda Pandit and Nilakantha apply different Mimamsa maxims and drew different conclusions regarding adoption. While applying some maxims Nanda Pandit argues that a widow cannot adopt a child, even with the assent of her relatives, whereas Nilakantha, following some other nyayas allow the widow to adopt a child.²⁶

Next..