Moses, Hammurabi, and Manu are considered as the 'First Lawgivers' of ancient civilisations. The Manusmriti, composed between 200 BC and 200 AD, is the text which regulated the day-to-day life of the Indian Society. Attributed to 'Manu' it laid down a strict and rigid code based on 'caste' distinctions. Moreover, the transgression of any rule laid down by it would lead to punishment which could be different according to the caste to which the 'offender' belonged. Consequently, this division of the Indian Society continued for ages and still continues to reside.

The Manusmriti rigidly divides society into four primary categories: Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (merchants and landowners), and Shudras (labourers and service providers). Outside of this varna system existed those deemed “untouchables,” who were subjected to extreme social exclusion. Each caste was assigned specific duties and privileges, with Brahmins enjoying the highest status and legal protections, and Shudras facing the harshest restrictions and punishments. The text's treatment of gender was similarly unequal. Women were denied independent agency and were expected to remain under the control of their father, husband, or son throughout life. Educational access, property rights, and personal autonomy were all heavily restricted for women, who were often portrayed as needing constant guardianship. Consequently, the denial of equality and equal opportunity was inherently institutionalised. 

With the advent of the British Rule, two important changes took place. First, the British enacted Laws which applied to concepts not dependent upon the religious inclination or upon the societal position of the individual. E.g., the Indian Penal Code defined offences and prescribed punishments without reference to the offender or victim's religion or caste. Second, the Laws were passed to terminate or modify certain concepts which were either religious or the society linked them to religion. E.g., Abolition of Sati, Widow Remarriage, etc.

The Indian Constitution was drafted by the Constituent Assembly of India under the guidance of Sir Benegal Narsing Rau and was guided by the Govt. of India Act, 1935, other Constitutions of the World, and the studies undertaken by the various Committees. One of the many committees of this Assembly was the Drafting Committee which was chaired by Dr B. R. Ambedkar. This Constitution was step towards establishing in the Indian Society the values of liberty, equality, fraternity, and dignity of the individual. This vast contrast between the two books of Manusmriti and the Constitution needs analysis.

The Constitution was designed to establish a secular and democratic state. It retains the rich Indian history and makes amends wherever necessary. This study navigates the friction—and occasional convergence—between these two texts. Rather than replicate ancient laws, post-independence India sought to reconstruct its foundations by addressing inherited inequalities through legal guarantees. The Manusmriti and the Constitution thus represent not just different eras, but divergence in the aspirations of a changing societal outlook - from preservation to transformation.

It is of importance that the Manusmriti was not formally recognized as a legal code in independent India, its long-standing influence over customary law and societal structures persisted well into the modern era perpetuating systemic inequalities many of which contemporary India continues to confront.

From The Manusmriti to The Constitution

The creation of the Indian Constitution was aimed to put an end to the centuries of discrimination. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a critic of caste-based social systems and one of the voices in India's push toward equality. As chairman of the Constitution's drafting committee, Ambedkar envisioned a framework that would protect every individual's dignity, regardless of their birth or background.

Dr Ambedkar's rejection of the Manusmriti was not merely ideological it was visceral and symbolic. In 1927, during the Mahad Satyagraha, he publicly burned the ancient text to protest its sanctioning of caste oppression. For him, the Manusmriti represented the spiritual and legal foundation of systemic inequality. In his groundbreaking 1936 treatise, Annihilation of Caste, he laid bare the contradictions between traditional Hindu orthodoxy and the principles of human rights. He rejected caste not merely as a social hierarchy, but as a spiritual and psychological shackle on liberty. To him, true freedom for India required a complete moral and structural rupture from caste-based doctrines. For him the Constitution was not a static legal manuscript, but a dynamic blueprint for social emancipation. 

In contrast, he saw the Constitution as a radically inclusive blueprint for justice a living document grounded in rational thought, universal rights, and social reform. The Constitution's Fundamental Rights, particularly those enumerated in Part III, underscore this moral revolution. Article 14 establishes equality before the law, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of caste, religion, race, sex, or place of birth. Article 17 categorically abolishes untouchability, and Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and religious practice. 

Ambedkar's legacy through the Constitution reflects more than just legal acumen; it embodies a vision of India reborn. His efforts contributed to a legal path that not only condemned historical injustices but actively sought to correct them. The Constitution, thus, was not a mere legal framework it was a national declaration of dignity, equity, and human worth.

The Reshaping of the Society through the Laws

Marriage, underwent a conceptual overhaul. Ancient texts considered it an inviolable religious sacrament, especially for women, who were expected to remain submissive and faithful without any scope for legal recourse. Post-independence reforms, including the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, allowing for divorce, maintenance, and judicial separation recognizing women's autonomy and rights within the relationship.

In the realm of inheritance, the Manusmriti restricted property ownership to male heirs, sidelining women. That paradigm shifted with the Hindu Succession Act (1956) and its 2005 amendment, which granted equal coparcenary rights to daughters, securing their claim to ancestral property on par with sons. This was more than legal reform but a societal transformation. However, the zeal to reform the laws without understanding the full consequences of the changes causes difficulties in their interpretation and their application. The lack of clarity over the intent and effect of the 2005 Amendment exists even after two decades since its enactment.

The Manusmriti rejected the idea of termination of pregnancy. This denial of bodily autonomy was first corrected in 1971 and continues to be expanded by the Supreme Court by interpreting and applying the Constitution.

Even the ancient idea of kingship as moral authority finds its democratic echo in the modern Indian state, which acts not as ruler but as welfare protector tasked with upholding justice, dignity, and the well-being of all, particularly the marginalized.

Thus, the Constitution does set at naught the inherited customs and traditions. But reforms them and makes them adaptable to the ideas, values, norms, and mores accepted in today's times.

Retained aspects of the Manusmriti

Although In India's intellectual heritage, the concept of dharma held immense significance not merely as spiritual doctrine, but as a framework for individual and societal obligations. Historically, one's virtue and purpose were assigned based on caste, gender, and age, leaving little room for individual agency or moral flexibility. By the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, the idea of the individual's duties and obligations was reintroduced. This shift is visible in Article 51A, where Fundamental Duties are outlined as collective obligations owed to the nation not divinely ordained roles defined by social hierarchy. Every citizen is called upon to uphold the sovereignty of India, protect its cultural heritage, and promote harmony duties grounded in shared citizenship rather than sacred lineage. This reflects a deliberate effort to reclaim the moral landscape from its hierarchical past and repopulate it with values shaped by reason, justice, and human dignity. Dharma, once a tool for social order rooted in exclusion, is recast as a universal ethic of participation binding people together not by ancestry but by accountability.

The path which lies ahead

Despite constitutional protections and progressive legislation, the deep-rooted legacy of caste-based exclusion and patriarchal control continues to surface across India's social and institutional fabric. Laws alone have not eradicated centuries of inequality especially when cultural norms, inherited biases, and traditional practices persist subtly or overtly in everyday life. 

Practices such as manual scavenging, honour killings, and gender-based violence serve as painful reminders that constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality are still far from universally realized. These injustices are not isolated incidents but part of broader social patterns rooted in long-standing discriminatory customs. Despite legal prohibitions and policy interventions, manual scavengers mostly from Dalit communities continue to risk their lives to perform degrading labour. Similarly, acts of honour-based violence, often targeting women for exercising autonomy in marriage or social mobility, reveal how patriarchal and casteist ideologies still shape notions of family and social “honour.”

The Manusmriti and the Indian Constitution represent a different vision of society and governance. Where the former is steeped in divinely ordained hierarchy, prescribing roles and rights based on caste and gender, the latter is a declaration of universal dignity, built on the foundations of equality, secularism, and fundamental freedoms. 

Although remnants of ancient legal thought can be traced in India's post-independence legal order, the Constitution doesn't borrow its values it filters, refines, and rejects what contradicts the spirit of democracy. Concepts such as the rule of law, civic responsibility, and social order may share superficial parallels with earlier doctrines, but they are now embedded in a modern framework that recognizes every citizen as equal before the law. 

By anchoring itself in rationality and human rights rather than theological authority, the Constitution severs the chains of inherited inequality and charts a path toward collective liberation.

In the final analysis, India chose not to live by the script of the past, but to write a new one etched not in divine decree, but in democratic resolve.

Authors: Vishal Vijayrao Kale, Founder & Managing Partner – Kale & Shinde Associates | Manasi Kale, Research fellow, MIT College of Law. Views are personal.