Why Maxwell when we have our own Mimansa?

By Vijay Kumar

Justice Markandey Katju of the Supreme Court is an authority on ancient Indian legal theories. His scholarship in Sanskrit is so well acknowledged that he was invited to deliver the convocation address of a Sanskrit University. In a landmark judgement on customs valuation, which we are carrying today, Justice Katju laments that “It is deeply regrettable that in our Courts of Law, lawyers quote Maxwell and Craies but nobody refers to the Mimansa Principles of Interpretation.” What is Mimansa? See our Special Column today. Justice Katju had elsewhere explained the theory as :-

++ The Mimansa system is ritualistic. Its entire emphasis is on performance of the Yagya for spiritual or worldly benefit. The central belief in the Mimansa system was that on the performance of a particular Yagya in accordance with the rules prescribed in the Brahmanas a potency or power called 'apurva' would be created resulting in the fulfilment of the object of the Yagya, either immediately or after an interval of time. Some Yagyas known as nityayagyas such as darshapurnamasi, agnihotra, etc., and had to be performed as a religious duty regularly throughout one's life for spiritual benefits. The darshapurnamasiyagya had to be performed on every moonless and full moon day, while agnihotra had to be performed daily. Certain other yagyas known as kamyayagyas were conducted for some worldly benefits and were optional

++ The Mimansa principles are highly rational and equitable. The Mimansaks were not too much obsessed with technicalities, and they aimed at finding the intention of the legal text and sought to breathe reason and equity into it to the extent possible. This is precisely what the modern method of interpretation strives to achieve.

Application of Mimansa

++ The facts in the case were that the petitioner had been elected Chairman of a Town Area in U.P. He was removed by the Collector after giving him a hearing, and the Collector's order was confirmed by the State Government. But the State Government had not given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The question before the court was whether the State Government, too, had to give an opportunity of hearing before it confirmed the order of the Collector. After a great deal of consideration Justice Katju answered it in the affirmative, utilising the anusunga principle of Mimansa. This interpretation was resorted to by invoking the anusunga principle of Mimansa according to which an expression occurring in one clause is often meant also for a neighbouring clause. It is generally said that for economy of words that it is mentioned only in the former.

++ Under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 only the Designated Courts are empowered to grant bail. And Section. 9 provides that Designated Judge means the judge nominated by the Govt. after consulting the Chief Justice. Though the U.P. Government nominated District Judges to be Designated Judges there had been no District Judges and hence no Designated Judges in several Districts as selection had not been made. Several persons had therefore been languishing in jail for more than a year without even an opportunity to apply for bail. Mimansa Rule of Substitution for Jateshtinyaya was commended to solve this problem. By invoking this rule the High Court could rule that the seniormost Additional District Judge could grant bail in the absence of the District Judge