1

A Brief Study On: Mimangsa Principle ofInterpretation

Table of content

List of the cases

1. Introduction

1.1. Background…………………………………………………………...….4

1.2. Research Question

…...........................................................

....................5

1.3. Rational …………………………………………………………………5

1.4.

Methodology…................................................

.........................................5

1.5. Limitations ………………………………………………………..….….5

2. Literature Review:

2.1. Evolution of Mimangsa Rule of Interpretation…………………….……6-7

2.2. Mimangsa/or Purva Mimangsa Rule of Interpretation……………..……… 7-9

2.3. Reasons for using Principle of Mimangsa……………………..

…………. 9-10

2.4. Use of the mimangsa principle of

interpretation………………………….10-12

3. Analysis and conclusion…………………………………………….:13

Bibliography

List of the cases

Mahabir Prasad Dwivedi v. State, AIR 1992 All 351

Sardar Mohammad Ansar Khan v. State of U.P1993

ALR 89

Tribhuwan Misra v. D.I.O.S, Writ Petition No.

17544 of 1990 decided on 30-3-1992

U.P Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v Brij Kishore,

AIR 1988 SC 2239

Vinay Khare v. State of U.P, 1993 ALR 1

Part-I

1. Introduction:

1.1. Background:There are six classical system of the Hindu Philosophy; which are

Nayaya, Vaisheshik, Sankhya, Yoga, Purva Mimansa and Utter

Mimansa. And three non-classical system of philosophy; Buddhism,

Jainism and Charvaka. Among those six classical systems of Hindu

Philosophy only Purva and Utter Mimangsa rely on the authority of

the Veda. The purva mimansa lays emphasis on the Brahamana part

of the shruti 1 while the Utter Mimansa lays emphasis on the

Upanishad part of the shruti.

The mimangsa (or rather Purva Mimansa, to be exact) rules were

laid down by Jaimini in his sutras written in 600 B.C2. One of

the objectives of this principle was to examine the practical

aspect of the Dharma, i.e. to simplify and understand the Vedic

hymns and Upanishads. 3. The meaning of the Sanskrit term of the

Mimangsa is “Reflection” or “Critical Investigation”4

The fundamental purpose of this school is to explain the nature

of dharma. It says “the nature of the dharma is not accessible

through the practice of the reason or observation”. The only

right way to Dharma is to obtain inference from the authority of

1 Veda is also called shruti2 N.M Mulchandani 1993, a daulat publication, Interpretation and Interpretation, 1993 , p.583 Yubaraj Sangroula, Jurisprudence; the Philosophy of Law, Oriental Perspective With Special Reference to Nepal, KSL, 2010, pp189-1904 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/383181/Mimamsa accessed on 2013.04.24

the revelation contained in the Vedas, which are considered

eternal, authorless and infallible5.

As Purva mimangsa rely on the authority of Brahamana part of Veda

and was related with the performance of the Yagaya or rituals and

for the performance of it, the principles and systems of the

interpretation was introduced so as to perform rituals correctly

so as to obtain the Mokshya(salvation) which is also called as

dharma. And later on the principles used for the performance of

the rituals were used in legal sector to impass the logical

judgments.

1.2. Research Problem:

This research paper upholds the following research problems;

Study on the evolution of the mimangsa principle of

interpretation. .

The various axioms and principle of the mimangsa principle

of interpretation and its uses in deciding the cases kin

consideration to the statute and law.

1.3. Rationale:

Interpretation is the process which is adopted for determination

of the meaning of writing and is the most important aid to

determine its true meaning or the intent of the framers of the

5 Sangroula (n.30, p189

documents. It is the art of finding out the true sense of words

written in those legislations the sense which their author

intended to convey. It is therefore both art and science to find

the true meaning off the word given in the law texts.

There are various principles of the interpretation of the legal

texts used in the modern time. Maxwell system of interpretation

is one of them. as Maxwell principle of interpretation is the

western development so as there is also the developed stage of

the rule of interpretation on eastern part of, the world known as

the Mimangsa rule of interpretation which was used to interpret

the religious-legal documents . In this backdrop this research

paper tries to find out how the Hindu law of Interpretation came

into existence and how it is being used for the interpretation

and its uses.

1.4. Limitations:

This research paper holds the following limitations:

This paper is a doctrinal study

This research paper would only deal with the purva mimansa

not with other classical Hindu Philosophy.

1.5. Methodology:

This research paper is a doctrinal study and the resources used

for it are secondary resources i.e. book, journals, articles,

websites etc

Chapter-II

2.1. Evolution of Mimangsa Rule of Interpretation:

In ancient time people rather than worshipping the gods like we

do today used to perform some ritualistic Yagya i.e. sacrificial

fire to the gods. With this backdrop, Mimangsa system was created

in connection with Yagya which used to deal with the Karmakanda6.

There are four types of Veda (or Shruti) namely; (1) Samhita or

mantra (2)Brahmanas (3) Aranyaks and 4. Upanishad. Whereas

Samhita consists of Rigveda, Samaveda,the Yajurveda and the

Artharva veda. Among those four Veda, Purva mimangsa rely on the

authority of Brahamana part of veda. The Brahamanas prescribes

the rule for the performance of the rituals (yagyas).

With the passage of time language changes from complex to simple,

in the same way Sanskrit language too went through a subsequent

changes, from a very early stage of the Sanskrit language i.e.

Vedic Sanskrit written earlier and then Panini Sanskrit. Panini

wrote the books on grammar and fixed the rule for Sanskrit. Then

after 200 years Katyayan and after 2oo years of Katyayan,

Patanjali gave a subsequent contribution in the Sanskrit

language.

With the change in time and language, language and grammar of the

non-shruti part of the Sanskrit literature were altered and made

in accordance with the Panini grammar and hence was easily

6 P.3

comprehensible7. But similar alteration was not permitted for

shruti literature. One did not have the liberty to change the

language and grammar of the Vedas and make it accordance with the

Panini’s grammar, because it was considered to be sacred. In fact

it was not even written and was transmitted by oral tradition. 8

Brahmanas too, form a part of the Veda and hence their language

too could not be altered and made in accordance with the Panini’s

grammar.

The difficulty was that with the passage of time the Sanskrit

language changed since the time when the Brahamans were written

and hence and many of the text of the Brahamans later become

incomprehensible with the passage of time. It is for this reason

that principles of the interpretation had to be created to

explain them9

2.2. Mimangsa/or Purva Mimangsa Rule of Interpretation:

The mimansa principle of the interpretation was first laid down

by Jaimini in his sutras. The mimansa principle distinguishes

between the Obligatory rules and non-obligatory statement. The

main obligatory rule is called Vidhi (or Nishedha, if it is in

negative form)10

7 Justice Markandey Katju , K.L Sarkar’s Mimansa rules of Interpretation, Tagore lawlecture ,3rd edition, Modern law publications, 2010, P.58 Ibid P.69Ibid P.610Justice Markandey Katju, The Mimansa Principles of Interpretation, accessed onhttp://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/93v1a4.htm accessed on 4th may 2013

Vidhis are of four types

Utpatti vidhi or substantive injunction (e.g. ‘perform

agnihotra )

. Viniyoga vidhi, or applicatory rules (e.g. ‘with curdled

milk perform the agnohotra)

Prayog Vidhi or rules of procedure and,

Adhikara vidhi (rules regarding the rights and personal

competence),

Apart from these vidhis there are other quasi-vidhis called

niyamas and parishankhyas.

A non-obligatory statement is known as an arthavada. Thus most of

the texts in the samhitas and Upanishads are regarded as

arthavedas by the mimansaks .An arthaveda is the statement of the

praise or explanation and it is like the preamble or the

statement of the object of the statute. An arthveda has no legal

force by itself, but it is not entirely useless since like a

statement of objects or preamble it can help to simplify the

ambiguous vidhi or give the reason for it.

This situation has necessitated the need for evolving a system of

interpretation. Six axioms of interpretation have therefore been

developed for the interpretation of shastras.11. K.L. Sarkar

mentions 6 axiom of interpretation in his book which are:

11 ibid

a) The Sarthakyata axiom, which means that every word and

sentences must have same meaning.

b) The Laghava axiom (Gauravah doshah) which means that the

construction which makes the meaning simpler and shorter is

to be preferred.

c) The Arthaikatva axiom which states that a double meaning

should not be attached to a word or sentence occurring at

one and the same place. Such a double meaning is known as a

Vakyabheda, and is a dosh (fault)

d) The Gunapradhan axiom, which states that if a word or

sentence purporting to express a subordinate idea clashes

with a principal idea the former, must be adjusted to the

latter. Or must be in disregarded altogether.

e) The Samanjasya axiom, 12 which states that all attempts

should be made at reconciliation of apparently conflicting

texts. Jimutvahana has utilized this principle of

reconciling conflicting texts of manu and Yajnavalkya on the

right of the sucession.

f) The Vikalpa axiom which states that if there is a real and

irreconcilable contradiction between two legal rules having

equal force, the rule more in accordance with equity and

usage can be adopted at one’s option.(it must be clarified

12 The inconsistencies asserted are not actually found. The conflict consistsof difference of application, the real injunction is not affected byapplication, hence there is inconsistencies,. Sutra 9 0f Jaimimini’s sutracited in http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/93v1a4.htm accessed on 4thmay 2013

here that where one of the rule is a higher legal norms as

compared to the other, e.g a shruti is a higher norm then a

smriti, then by the Badha principle the former will prevail.

The above axioms of mimangsa rule of interpretation, proves that

mimansaks were great reconcilers. They made every effort to

reconcile conflict and held that the vikalpa was to be resorted

only if all other means of reconciliation failed, for vikalpa had

8 faults (dosh)

Apart from the above mentioned axioms of interpretation there are

the four well known general principles of interpretation in

mimansa which are:

a. The shruti principle or the literal rule. This is

illustrated by the well known Garhapatya maxim. There is

Vedic verse ‘The correct interpretation, according to this

shruti princiople, is the first interpretation.

b. The Linga principle (also called Lakshana Artha) or the

suggestive power of the words or expression. this principle

can be illustrated by the decision of the supreme court in

U.P Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v Brij Kishore13 where the words

‘landless persons’ were held to be referred to be landless

peasants only and not to landless business men. In the

mimansa, it is illusterated by the ‘Barhi nyaya’.

In Linga principle, no violence is done to the wording of

the text, but the words or expressions are construed

13 AIR 1988 SC 2239

differently from the literal sense, and hence Linga is

really construction by context

c. The Vakaya principle or syntactical arrangement. Mimansaks

illusterated it by the ‘Aruni Nyaya’

In Vakya principle, some violence is done to the text e.g.,

by connecting two separate sentences, or by adding words or

expressions, or by transferring words or expressions up or

down a sentence. This violence may sometimes become

necessary to save the text from becoming meaningless or

absurd. For this purpose the Uha principle (use of reason)

is employed

d. Prakarana, which permits construction by referring to some

other texts in other to make the meaning clear.

The above are only the some of the broad principles of

interpretation created by Miamansaks. Mimansa Principles go into

minute details and systematically arrange the principles of

interpretation into categories and sub-categories. For example,

the Vakya principle (mentioned above) include adhayahara and

anusanga (supplying of missing words and expressions), upakarsha

and apakarsha (transference of clauses up or down in the

sentence), etc

2.3. Reasons for using Principle of Mimangsa

The mimansa principles of the interpretation were created for

their religious purposes i.e. to enable the correct performance

of the Yagya. Mimansaks were not the legal person, their aims

were to perform the Yagya or ritual properly without the mistake,

because they believed that this is the only way to achieve

mokshya (liberation). For this purpose, they had to create a

system of the interpretation to resolve the conflict ambiguities

etc for this mimangsa principle of interpretation was used

because these principles were extremely rational and logical.

Therefore they began to be subsequently used in other branches

of the Sanskrit literature e.g. in philosophy, law, grammar

etc.14

Another reason why such principles were created was the texts of

the Brahamans were often unsystematic, incoherent and rambling.

With many ambiguities, conflicts and vagueness etc. mimangsa

principle of the interpretation was used so that those problems

would be solved and they will be able to perform their rituals in

a systematic manner and with a passage of time its relevancy in

the field of law to interpret the religious as well as legal text

came into existence.

2.4. Use of the mimangsa principle of interpretation:

Knowledge of Mimansa Principles is important to creatively

develop the law. But nepalse legal judiciary has no instances of14 P.7

the use of this principle of interpretation. A few examples of

utilization of Mimansa Principles in some of the Indian cases

are:

1. In Sardar Mohammad Ansar Khan v. State of U.P15 

Fact of the case:

The controversy was as to which of two clerks appointed on

the same day in an Intermediate College would be senior, and

hence entitled to promotion as Head Clerk. Now there is no

rule to cater to this situation.

Decision of court:

However, Chapter 2, Regulation 3 of the U.P. Intermediate

Education Regulations states that where 2 teachers are

appointed on the same day, the senior in age will be senior.

Using the atidesh Principle of mimansa it was held that the

same principle which applies to teachers should be also

applied to clerks, and hence the senior in age would be

senior.

The atidesh principle originated in the practical difficulty

of performing certain yagyas. There are some yagyas (e.g.

agnihotra, darshapurnamani, etc.) whose method of

performance is given in detail in the Brahmanas. These are

known as prakriti yagyas. However, there are other yagyas15 1993 ALR 89

whose rules are not given any where, and these are known as

vikriti yagyas.

The atidesh principle was created to resolve this

difficulty, and according to this principle the vikriti

yagya is to be performed according to the rules of the

prakriti yagya belonging if they belong to the same genus.

2. Tribhuwan Misra v. D.I.O.S. 16

Fact of the case:

In this case the petitioner, who was the senior most teacher

in an Intermediate College, had filed a writ petition in the

Allahabad High Court claiming that he should have been

appointed ad hoc Principal on the retirement of the previous

Principal, but the management had superseded him. 

Decision of the court:

In which one of the Division Bench ruling held that; the

senior most teacher should be appointed as ad hoc Principal,

whereas another Division Bench delivered held that it is the

discretion of the Management as to who is to be

appointed. In this case the Samanjasya principle was usedto reconcile two apparently conflicting Division Bench

rulings.

16 Writ Petition No. 17544 of 1990 decided on 30-3-1992

It was explained that the former decision should be

interpreted to mean that ordinarily the senior most teacher

should be appointed Principal, while the latter decision

should be interpreted to mean that in exceptional cases,

viz., if there are grave charges against him, then can be

superseded by a reasoned order, though only after giving him

a show-cause notice.

3. Vinay Khare v. State of U.P17

Fact of the case:

The controversy in this case was that if in a competitive

examination two candidates got equal marks whether the

candidate who got more marks in the oral interview should

be placed higher in the select list or the candidate who

got more marks in the written test.

Decision of the court:

It was held in this case that the candidate who got more

marks in the written test should be placed higher because to

interpret general suitability on the basis of marks in the

written test is a short and simple interpretation and

provides a clear objective test, whereas the criteria in the

oral interview involves consideration of the candidate's

17 1993 ALR 1

personality, dress, physique, etc. which is complicated and

in which there are more chances of favoritism and

arbitrariness could prevail.

Therefore in this decision the Laghava Principle of

interpretation was used.

Chapter-III

3. Analysis and conclusion:

Mimangsa principle of interpretation was previously laid down for

the correct performance of the Yagyas as Mimansaks believed that

the Yagya was the most important part of the religion. They

regarded Brahmanas to be important part of the Veda which dealt

with the yagas and rituals. For obtaining liberation which is the

ultimate aim of the classical Hindu philosophy, correct

performance of the yagya was the most important, for it the

interpretation was required for the Brahamana part of veda and

hence maimangs principle of interpretation was created. Later on

the same interpretation is used in religious and legal texts to

make it comprehensible. As Vedic texts were not easily

comprehensible according to the change of time and made according

to the Panini grammar, this principle of interpretation is

greatly used to make Vedic texts comprehensible.

It is a principle of interpretation laid down in eastern oriental

philosophy. This principle of interpretation has various axioms

and principles which are used for the interpretation of the legal

texts. One very eminent character of the Mimangsa rule of

interpretation is that, the Mimansaks were great intention

seekers, and the Linga, Vakya and Prakarana principles all aim at

finding the intention of the law.

But mimangsak were not the legal expert, the mimangsa rule of

interpretation was not the rule of law but methodology for

resolving the certain difficulties. As they were originally

evolved for the interpreting the religious texts pertaining to

the Yagyas, all of them may not be relevant for interpreting

legal texts. Therefore it lies on the hand of the interpreter to

take the relevant matter of the mimangsa principle of

interpretation to make the statute more democratic and equitable.

Even though the mimangsa principle of the interpretation seems to

be more rational and logical as per the experts of the Mimangsa

rule of interpretation, it is not widely in use. The impact lies

from the time when the British ruler started ruling India. They

bring the new rule of interpretation and Mimangsa principle of

interpretation was left out from being used. But there are the

instances nowadays used by the Indian court in some of the

decisions. But in Nepal there is no practice of using the

Mimangsa principle of Interpretation.

Bibliography

Mulchandani N.M 1993, a daulat publication, Interpretation and

Interpretation, 1993

Katju Markandey, K.L Sarkar’s Mimansa rules of Interpretation, Tagore law

lecture, 3rd edition, Modern law publications, 2010.

Sangroula Yubaraj, Jurisprudence; the Philosophy of Law, Oriental

Perspective With Special Reference to Nepal, KSL, 2010

Katju Markandey, The Mimansa Principles of Interpretation, accessed on

http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/93v1a4.htm accessed on

4th may 2013

http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/18/stories/

2007121860711100.htm,accessed on 4th May, 2013

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mimamsa, accessed on

4th May, 2013

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/383181/Mimamsa,

accessed on 4th May, 2013

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Mimansa, accessed on

4th May, 2013

vhttp://modernlpin.com/contents/mimansa.htm, accessed on 4th May,

2013

vhttp://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/ccs-ajc/page4.html

accessed on 4th May, 2013

http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/publications/Reports/Ruleoflaw.pdf,

accessed on 4th May, 2013

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part12/chap1.htm, accessed on

4th May, 2013