....Previous

Similar  divergence  of  opinion  can  be  noticed  between  Vijnanesvara  and  Nilakantha. In their discussions regarding the time of succession to the property of a deceased person, Vijnanesvara interprets the word bhrata in two senses of full-brother and half-brother. Accordingly a full-brother will succeed to the property of a deceased person and in his default, the half-brother is eligible to succeed. This view is opposed by Nilkantha who detects the misapplication of Vrttidvaya birodha here.²⁷

Now I would like to draw attention to one very significant statement of Jaimini’s Mimamsa-Sutras which has its long-standing effect on Indian Jurisprudence. In the very first chapter of the Mimamsa-Sutras, it has been stated that “established and approved usage has the force of law without reference to the causes which brought them into existence.”²⁸ This principle emphasizes that common sense and socially accepted practices may be treated as law and in some cases they have the authority even more than the theoretical principles of Sastras. It holds that “ law is common sense as Sir Henry Maine observed on one occasion. And even according to old Smrti authors such as Vrihaspati and Narada, the administration of law should be conducted with common sense.”²⁹

In conformity with a view such as this we find that the popular maxims or laukika nyayas command much respect and authority in the society. This further reiterates that what is in current usage must prevail, independently of any ground. “ This Mimamsa principle not only establishes the authority of customs but also shuts the door against disputing the authority of digests and commentaries, such as Jimutvahana and Mitakshara, whose authority has been accepted and acted upon by the different communities professing to be led by them for centuries. What they have taught has acquired at least the authority of customary law. Their Lordship of the Privy Council unconsciously reiterates the above mentioned Mimamsa principles in favour of the authority of current customs and of current legal treatises in the collector of Madura vs Mathu Ramlinga Sathapathy (10. W. RPC. 21).”³⁰

Due consideration for social practice and common usage, lakavyavahara, has been given at all stages of the evolution of Hindu law and it is interesting to note that such importance of both practice and sastras prevails till today. Even in 1998 the Supreme Court of India set aside the judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court on the ground of suffering from misconception about the nature of the pre-existing right of a Hindu widow. The apex Court has ruled to maintenance of a Hindu woman flows from the social and temporal relationships between husband and wife, and the right in the case of a widow is a pre-existing right. The Supreme Court holds that such right is recognized and enjoined by pure sastric Hindu law and strongly stressed even by the earlier Hindu jurists, starting from Manu to Yajnavalkya. “This pre-existing right was enshrined in Shastric Hindu law long before the passing of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 and the Hindu Married Women’s Right to Separate Maintenance and Residence Act, 1946. …The Acts merely recognized the (existing) position…and gave it statutory backing.”³¹
This particular case exemplifies that though Hindu law has been amended from time to time, yet the role of tradition or sastra on the one hand and the common practice on the other carry much weight. The above decision by the apex court shows that current statutes are confirming the sastras and practices as suggested by Jaimini in the Mimamsa-sutras in those ancient days. Such cases further reveal that often the judgements of a lower court can be modified by a higher court for stay, revision or rejection. And in all such cases tradition, commonsense, usual practice and reason remain coordinated. Without going further into details I may mention that perusal of current Hindu law will reveal that not only in cases of stridhana and marriage, but also in cases of succession, adoption, guardianship, etc. many principles of Mimamsa and other Dharmasastras have been incorporated in the present Hindu Law Code. This shows that legislation reflects the customary morality of the society and manifests the culture and tradition of the country. 

In concluding this paper, I would like to mention that the above discussion regarding the Mimamsa principles of interpretation, which are relevant and applicable for legal matters, are not exhaustive but illustrative. Such illustrations purport to show the close relation between the theoretical nyayas and practical vyavaharas, between tacit rationale of Hindu jurisprudence and actual Hindu law as enjoined in Karma mimamsa.                

Next..