INTRODUCTION
The characterization of the contemporary Indian legal landscape is by a profound dichotomy. While the state is operating under the guidance of the Constitution that promises justice and equality to everyone, the machinery of the law is rooted in the English Common Law tradition that is a system designed by the colonizer to maintain control rather than to facilitate indigenous liberation. This “legal alienation” has created a gap between the law of the books and the law of the people1.
We really need to take a look at the Indian knowledge system. The Indian Knowledge System is all about Dharma. People often get Dharma wrong. Think it means “religion.” This is not what Dharma means but the actually comes from the word, which means “to sustain” or “to hold things together.”
When we talk about Dharma it is not just law but it is like a set of rules that helps every individual, society, and the whole universe to work together smoothly. This article talks about called Dharma Jurisprudence. So, what does that mean? It means the law should help people do what is right and follow the way of things. We should try to solve problems in a way that makes sense of just arguing with each other in court. The Indian Knowledge System and the Dharma could help us do this.
EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONFLICT: WESTERN POSITIVISM VS DHARMA
The prevailing legal philosophy in India is rooted in Legal Positivism. This idea was first explained by John Austin, who said that law is what the ruler says it is. It is enforced by a punishment2. Here a law is considered valid just because it is made by a government authority no matter if it is morally good or bad. On the hand Dharma Jurisprudence thinks that the ruler does not make the law but rather follows it. In Indian political ideas the King was the one who made sure people followed Dharma. Dharma was seen as a higher law that even the King had to follow and be responsible to. The King enforced Dharma. Dharma Jurisprudence is different from Legal Positivism. Legal Positivism is about the command of the sovereign. Dharma Jurisprudence is about Dharma. The sovereign is subject to Dharma. The King was accountable, to Dharma3.
Furthermore, Western jurisprudence is primarily “Rights-Based.” It focuses on the individual’s claim against the state or others. Dharma Jurisprudence is “Duty-Based” (Kartavya). It suggests that when every individual performs their inherent duty, the rights of others are automatically protected. For instance, if a parent performs the Dharma of care, the child’s “right to protection” is fulfilled without the need for a court order4.
INTEGRATING IKS INTO MODERN CONSTITUTIONALISM
The Indian Constitution is a living document it is not just something that exists on its own. The Supreme Court of India came up with the Basic Structure Doctrine5, which is based on some ideas that never change these are called Sanatana principles. These are like core values that always stay the same and Dharma Jurisprudence is also, about following these values. The Indian Constitution and Dharma Jurisprudence are connected in this way they both care about what’s right and fair.
• Constitutional Morality and Dharma: The idea of Constitutional Morality used by courts can be made stronger by including the concept of Lokasamgraha, which means the well-being of everyone. When courts try to understand what Justice means in the Preamble they can look at Indian Knowledge Systems, the ideas of Nyaya, which is about fairness and logic and Niti, which is about good conduct and policy. This way the law does not just give a judgment. Also helps to restore.
• Environmental jurisprudence, From Anthropocentrism to Eco-centrism: In the past Western laws saw nature as something that did not belong to anyone or just a resource for humans to use. Indian Knowledge Systems think of the Earth as Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, which means the world is like one big family. The old Indian respect for nature gives a philosophical reason, for the Public Trust Doctrine and the Precautionary Principle6. The recent move to give rivers rights is a modern legal version of the old idea that nature has a spirit and a right to exist7.
• Restorative Justice and Harmony: The current adversarial system focuses on punishment (Danda). While Danda is recognized in IKS, it is always a last resort. The main aim of IKS is to bring harmony. Making IKS stronger would mean adding mediation and community-based dispute resolution, like the Gram Sabha model to the formal legal process. This means IKS is moving from punishing people to helping them make things right. IKS is, about finding a better way to deal with problems, which is why IKS is so important.
ADDRESSING THE CRITIQUE: SECULARISM AND PLURALISM
Some people are worried that Dharma Jurisprudence will force everyone to follow one religion. We need to separate two things: Dharma that applies to everyone and the duties that are specific to certain groups of people.
Dharma Jurisprudence that is modern focuses on the kind of Dharma that applies to everyone. This includes things like Satya (truth), Ahimsā (non-violence), and Asteya (non-stealing). These are values that’re important for all people no matter what religion they follow. If we base our laws on these values our legal system will be fairer to everyone. Will respect all cultures rather than being less fair, to people who are not part of a specific religion8. Dharma Jurisprudence makes our laws better by using Dharma that applies to everyone.
CONCLUSION
The Indian Knowledge System in law needs to be brought to life. This does not mean we have to go to the old days of ancient texts. It means we have to create a kind of law that is free from foreign influences. When the law speaks to people in a language that’s not their own it will always have a hard time being accepted and understood.
To make this happen we need to do a thing:
• Change what we teach in law schools. They should have classes on the Indian Knowledge System and old Indian law. This way students can see the difference between our system and the one we got from others.
• Judges should think about what’s fair and just in our own culture when they make decisions about things that affect people and the earth.
• We need to make laws that’re not just about what people can do but also about what people should do because the laws should help people and the earth and that is what judges should think about when they make these decisions, about people and the earth.
If we can put together the things about modern law with the wisdom of our old traditions we can make a legal system that is not just good, at getting things done but also helps people be good. The Indian Knowledge System can help us make a system that does not just tell people what to do. Also helps them do what is right.
*****
Footnotes
1. Upendra Baxi, The crisis of the Indian legal system (1982)
2. John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence determined (1832)
3. P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, Vol. I-V, 1930-1962).
4. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948).
5. His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.
6. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388.
7. Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, [2017] 3 U.D. 501 (often cited as Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014).
8. Ravikant Balkrishna Sangurde, Dharma as a Foundational Pillar of Indian Jurisprudence, 4 J. Advance & Future Res. 78, 78–83 (2026).