Mahabharata Through the Eyes of Indian Laws

The Mahabharata through the eyes of Indian laws reveals how questions of justice, duty, morality, evidence, punishment and human responsibility existed long before modern legal systems developed. Episodes involving Draupadi, Karna, Ashwatthama, Arjuna and Krishna raise legal and jurisprudential dilemmas that remain relevant today. Studying these events alongside modern Indian law helps explain the relationship between dharma, law, morality and justice in Indian jurisprudence.

What Does Mahabharata Through the Eyes of Indian Laws Mean?

Mahabharata through the eyes of Indian laws means examining events and moral conflicts in the Mahabharata by applying principles of modern Indian law and jurisprudence.

Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.

Add Now →

The Mahabharata is not merely an account of the conflict between the Pandavas and Kauravas. It contains disputes involving authority, property, personal liberty, duties of rulers, punishment, warfare, family relationships, evidence, justice and individual responsibility.

For jurisprudence, the importance of the Mahabharata lies particularly in the questions it raises. Its characters frequently face situations in which there is no simple distinction between right and wrong. Law, morality, social obligation and personal duty may point in different directions.

This makes the Mahabharata useful for understanding a basic jurisprudential problem: Is an act right merely because it is permitted by a rule, or must law also satisfy a deeper idea of justice?

The Mahabharata repeatedly presents situations in which strict rules appear inadequate. This creates a connection between dharma and law, especially with schools of jurisprudence that examine the relationship between law and morality.

Dharma and Law in the Mahabharata

Dharma occupies a central position in the Mahabharata. However, dharma cannot simply be translated as “law” in the modern statutory sense.

It is a wider concept involving righteousness, duty, justice, proper conduct, social responsibility and moral order. The difficulty is that different duties may conflict.

A person may have a duty towards family, another towards the State, another towards truth and yet another towards justice. Fulfilling one duty can sometimes result in violating another.

This complexity is captured by the idea that dharma is subtle. The Mahabharata therefore does not always provide straightforward rules that automatically solve disputes. Instead, it asks whether conduct remains righteous when duties and interests collide.

The relationship between dharma and legal philosophy can also be understood through the broader study of the Study of Dharma in the Light of Hindu Jurisprudence.

Is Dharma the Same as Modern Law?

Dharma and modern law overlap, but they are not identical.

Modern Indian law largely operates through the Constitution, legislation, judicial precedent and legally recognised principles. Dharma has a much wider moral and philosophical character.

Still, both deal with questions such as:

• Rights and duties: Both examine what individuals may claim and what obligations they owe to others. The correlation between rights and duties in jurisprudence is itself an important legal concept.
• Justice: Legal rules and dharma both raise the question of what treatment is fair in particular circumstances.
• Wrongdoing: Both are concerned with conduct that harms individuals or society.
• Responsibility: Both require consideration of intention, knowledge, consequences and circumstances. The concept of liability in jurisprudence similarly examines the legal consequences of violating duties and rights.

The principal difference is that modern law is institutionally enforceable, whereas dharma often deals with a person’s moral obligations beyond formal legal enforcement.

This distinction also resembles the difference between legal rights and broader moral claims.

Draupadi’s Question: Can Law Be Separated from Justice?

One of the strongest jurisprudential episodes in the Mahabharata arises from the dice game involving Yudhishthira.

After losing his wealth and kingdom, Yudhishthira stakes himself and thereafter Draupadi. When Draupadi is brought before the assembly, she asks a fundamentally legal question: Did Yudhishthira lose himself first, or did he lose Draupadi first?

The question challenges the legal basis of the supposed transaction. If Yudhishthira had already lost his own freedom and authority, the question arose whether he retained any capacity to stake another person.

Yet Draupadi’s challenge goes beyond technical legality. She also questions the dharma of the kings and elders who remain present while she is humiliated. The episode therefore shifts from “What does the rule permit?” to “What does justice require?”

This distinction between legality and morality remains central to modern jurisprudence and is discussed in detail in the study of law and morality.

Draupadi’s Case and Modern Indian Constitutional Values

Under modern Indian constitutional law, a person cannot be treated as property capable of being transferred through gambling.

The episode can therefore be studied through several contemporary legal ideas:

• Human dignity: The Constitution protects dignity as part of the broader right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
• Equality: Arbitrary and discriminatory treatment is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and the rule of law.
• Personal liberty: Individual freedom cannot depend upon another person’s gambling decision. Article 21 has developed into one of the most important guarantees of liberty and dignity in Indian constitutional law.
• Gender justice: The humiliation of Draupadi also raises questions concerning discrimination, violence and unequal social power.

The jurisprudential significance is wider than the facts of the episode. Draupadi challenges the legitimacy of a rule when its application produces a deeply unjust result.

The modern constitutional emphasis on fairness can also be understood through the principle of equity and fairness and the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21, commonly described as the Golden Triangle of the Constitution.

Mahabharata, Natural Law and Morality

The relationship between Mahabharata and Indian jurisprudence becomes clearer when the epic is compared with Natural Law Theory.

Natural law theories generally recognise a relationship between law and morality. The basic concern is that legal validity and moral correctness cannot always be understood in complete isolation.

The Mahabharata similarly refuses to present morality in purely mechanical terms. An action may satisfy one rule yet violate a higher moral consideration.

The discussion surrounding Draupadi demonstrates precisely this problem. A technical argument about gambling cannot fully answer whether her treatment was righteous.

The Mahabharata’s concept of dharma is therefore comparable, at least at a philosophical level, with natural law’s concern with moral reasoning.

At the opposite end lies legal positivism, which generally studies law as it exists rather than making legal validity dependent upon moral correctness. The contrast between these approaches helps explain why Mahabharata-based jurisprudential problems remain so useful in legal philosophy.

The difference between these theories is also central to the famous Hart and Fuller debate, which examined whether law should be understood separately from morality.

Human Choice and Responsibility in the Bhagavad Gita

The dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna before the Kurukshetra war provides another important lesson for jurisprudence.

Arjuna faces a conflict between competing duties. As a warrior, participation in battle appears to be his obligation. As a member of a family, however, fighting involves the possibility of killing relatives, teachers and persons whom he respects.

This is not merely a conflict between obedience and disobedience. It is a conflict between different conceptions of duty.

Krishna ultimately leaves responsibility for action with Arjuna. The discussion therefore gives importance to human choice and moral agency rather than reducing conduct to blind compliance with authority.

From a jurisprudential perspective, this is significant because legal responsibility also frequently depends upon human agency. Intention, knowledge, voluntariness and circumstances may determine how an act is legally characterised.

These considerations are closely connected with the wider concept of liability in jurisprudence, where legal responsibility follows from violation of recognised rights and duties.

Karna’s Death and the Question of Legal Identity

Karna’s life creates another interesting problem when examined through Indian legal concepts.

Karna was born to Kunti before her marriage but was raised by Radha and Adhiratha. For most of his life, he was known according to the identity under which he had been raised. His biological connection with the Pandavas was revealed much later.

After Karna’s death, a question arises regarding who could claim the stronger relationship with him for the purpose of performing his final rites: the Pandavas, as his biological brothers, or Duryodhana, with whom Karna had maintained his acknowledged social and political relationship.

This episode has traditionally been used while examining the Mahabharata from the perspective of facts, consciousness and legally relevant knowledge.

How Can Karna’s Situation Be Understood Under Evidence Law?

The older legal analysis of Karna’s position relied upon the definition of “fact” under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

India’s general law of evidence is now governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The transition from the Indian Evidence Act to the new evidence framework is part of the broader restructuring of India’s evidentiary law.

Modern evidence law is fundamentally concerned with identifying facts that can legally assist a court in deciding disputed issues.

Concepts such as burden of proof, primary and secondary evidence and oral and documentary evidence form part of this wider evidentiary framework.

The Karna episode should therefore be treated as a jurisprudential analogy rather than as a literal application of present-day evidence legislation to an ancient event.

Ashwatthama and Protection of an Unborn Child

The story of Ashwatthama provides one of the clearest comparisons between an event in the Mahabharata and modern criminal law.

Following Duryodhana’s defeat, Ashwatthama enters the Pandava camp at night and kills the sleeping sons of the Pandavas. Later, during his confrontation with the Pandavas, he directs the Brahmastra towards Uttara’s womb, where Abhimanyu’s unborn child is present.

The act raises legal questions concerning intentional harm to an unborn child.

What Would Modern Indian Criminal Law Say?

The earlier legal comparison involved Section 315 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which dealt with an act intended to prevent a child from being born alive or to cause it to die after birth.

The IPC has now been replaced for present criminal-law purposes by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita deals with an act done before a child’s birth with the intention of preventing the child from being born alive or causing the child to die after birth.

Section 92 separately deals with causing the death of a quick unborn child through an act that would amount to culpable homicide if it caused the death of a person.

The broader criminal-law framework relating to pregnancy and unborn children can also be studied through offences causing miscarriage under BNS.

Ashwatthama’s act therefore provides a useful illustration for understanding how intentional attacks directed towards an unborn child raise questions that modern criminal law expressly addresses.

Punishment of Ashwatthama and Theories of Punishment

Krishna’s punishment of Ashwatthama is jurisprudentially interesting because it is not presented simply as immediate execution.

Ashwatthama is deprived of the jewel from his forehead and condemned to prolonged suffering, isolation and wandering.

The episode can be examined through the theories of punishment.

Retributive Element

Retributive theory considers punishment as a response to wrongdoing. Ashwatthama had deliberately committed grave acts and therefore faced punishment corresponding to the seriousness of his conduct.

Deterrent Element

The severity of the punishment can also be interpreted as conveying a warning against acts involving deliberate attacks on innocent persons.

Expiatory Element

There is additionally an element of suffering and penance. The wrongdoer is forced to live with the consequences of his conduct.

The episode demonstrates that punishment in jurisprudence is not concerned only with physical confinement or death. It can represent condemnation, accountability, deterrence and moral consequences.

Does the Mahabharata Support Blind Obedience to Law?

The Mahabharata does not consistently support the idea that an order must be obeyed merely because it comes from an authority.

This distinguishes its moral reasoning from strict forms of legal formalism and from theories in which legal authority is treated separately from moral worth.

For comparison, John Austin’s theory of law explains positive law largely in terms of commands issued by political superiors and backed by sanctions. His wider theory of sovereignty also focuses upon the source of legal authority in a political superior.

The Mahabharata, however, repeatedly requires its characters to examine whether conduct is consistent with dharma. Rules, customs, promises and commands remain relevant, but their moral consequences cannot always be ignored.

The epic therefore contains numerous shades of grey rather than a simple black-and-white division between lawful and unlawful conduct.

This is important for jurisprudence because one of its enduring questions concerns the obligation to obey unjust law.

The Problem of Choosing the Lesser Evil

The Kurukshetra war raises another difficult question: Can morally questionable means ever be justified when they are used to prevent a greater wrong?

The conflict between the Pandavas and Kauravas does not always present morally perfect choices. Even the claims surrounding political authority and succession contain competing considerations.

Krishna occasionally supports strategies that would ordinarily appear improper because they are considered necessary to defeat what is regarded as the greater injustice.

This produces the jurisprudential problem of the lesser evil.

The issue also appears in modern legal philosophy. H.L.A. Hart’s work is often studied as part of debates concerning law and morality, particularly the question whether the legal status of a rule and its moral merit should be treated separately.

The Hart-Fuller debate provides one of the clearest illustrations of this conflict between legal positivism and natural law thinking.

Satya Versus Ahimsa: What Happens When Two Duties Conflict?

Another example concerns Kaushika, who faces a conflict between satya, meaning truth, and ahimsa, meaning non-violence.

Kaushika knows where a person fleeing dangerous men has gone. Telling the truth would reveal the person’s location and could result in death.

The dilemma is straightforward but profound:

• Satya: Speaking truth fulfils the duty to remain truthful, but it may produce a harmful result.
• Ahimsa: Concealing the truth could protect life but would involve departure from literal truthfulness.

Kaushika chooses literal truth, but the example demonstrates that mechanically following one moral rule may itself result in injustice.

For jurisprudence, the lesson is important. Rules cannot always be interpreted without regard to their purpose, circumstances and consequences.

This reflects the wider debate over whether law should be understood only as a system of formal rules or through principles of justice and morality. The debate can be explored further through Natural Law School theories and the Analytical School of Jurisprudence.

Raja Dharma and the Rule of Law

The Mahabharata also deals extensively with Raja Dharma, or the duties associated with rulership and governance.

Raja Dharma suggests that political power is accompanied by responsibility. A ruler is not expected merely to possess authority but to exercise it for maintaining order and justice.

This resembles a basic principle underlying modern constitutional government: public power is not absolute.

Modern Indian constitutionalism expresses this principle through the Constitution, judicial review, fundamental rights and the Rule of Law.

The evolution of the Rule of Law in India demonstrates how the principle developed into an important limitation upon arbitrary authority.

The doctrine is also closely connected with principles of natural justice, which require public authorities to exercise powers fairly and reasonably.

Modern constitutional government therefore requires that State authority operate within legally recognised limits.

The comparison should not be understood as establishing that modern constitutional doctrines were directly derived from the Mahabharata. Rather, both systems address an enduring jurisprudential concern: How should political power be controlled and exercised justly?

Conventional Morality and Critical Morality

One of the most valuable jurisprudential lessons from the Mahabharata is that social acceptance alone does not necessarily establish moral correctness.

A practice may be widely accepted by society and still be unjust.

This distinction resembles the difference between conventional morality and critical morality.

Conventional morality consists of standards commonly accepted within a society. Critical morality asks whether those standards can themselves be justified through reason, fairness and deeper moral principles.

Historical acceptance of practices such as slavery or sati demonstrates why this distinction matters. Their social acceptance at particular periods did not make them morally just merely because society tolerated them.

This issue lies at the centre of the relationship between law and morality. Natural law approaches attach greater significance to morality, while legal positivist approaches generally distinguish legal validity from moral merit.

What Does the Mahabharata Teach About Indian Jurisprudence?

A legal reading of the Mahabharata provides several important jurisprudential lessons.

Law Cannot Be Understood Without Questions of Justice

Draupadi’s challenge demonstrates that technical rules may fail to resolve the deeper question of whether an outcome is just.

This is one of the principal reasons why the study of jurisprudence extends beyond memorising statutes and legal provisions.

Rights and Duties Often Conflict

Arjuna, Karna and several other characters face situations where loyalty, family, social obligation and moral duty point in different directions.

The legal relationship between rights and duties is examined in greater detail under the correlation between rights and duties in jurisprudence.

Intention and Knowledge Matter

Modern criminal and evidence laws give considerable importance to intention, knowledge and consciousness.

The law of evidence also considers factors such as motive, preparation and behaviour in appropriate circumstances. The role of these factors can be studied through motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.

Authority Does Not Automatically Create Righteousness

The epic repeatedly questions rulers, elders and persons exercising power. Authority must therefore be distinguished from justice.

This idea has parallels with the modern Rule of Law, under which public authorities themselves remain subject to law.

Moral Problems Rarely Have Mechanical Answers

The idea that dharma is subtle recognises that difficult disputes cannot always be solved by blindly applying one rule.

The competing approaches adopted by different schools of jurisprudence illustrate how legal philosophers have similarly disagreed about the proper relationship between law, morality, society and authority.

Human Beings Remain Responsible for Their Choices

The philosophy emerging from several episodes places considerable importance upon human agency.

Moral uncertainty does not eliminate the responsibility to decide and act. Modern jurisprudence similarly studies responsibility through concepts such as liability, duty and legal consequences.

Relevance of Mahabharata to Modern Indian Law

The Mahabharata remains relevant to legal studies because jurisprudence is not limited to statutes and judgments.

Jurisprudence examines deeper questions such as:

• What makes a rule legally or morally binding?
• What is the relationship between law and justice?
• Can an unjust rule create an obligation to obey?
• How should conflicting rights and duties be resolved?
• Does intention affect legal liability?
• Should consequences influence moral and legal judgment?
• What limitations should exist on political authority under the Rule of Law?

The Mahabharata provides narratives through which these abstract jurisprudential questions become easier to understand.

However, similarities between ancient moral ideas and modern legal principles should be approached carefully. Modern Indian laws derive their legal authority from the constitutional and legislative framework.

Similarity between a Mahabharata episode and a contemporary legal provision does not by itself establish that the present law was historically derived from the epic.

The value of the comparison is primarily jurisprudential and analytical.

Conclusion

Mahabharata through the eyes of Indian laws shows that many fundamental questions of jurisprudence are timeless. Draupadi’s challenge raises the conflict between technical legality and justice; Karna’s story raises questions of identity and knowledge; Ashwatthama’s conduct can be examined through criminal responsibility; Arjuna’s dilemma reflects conflicts of duty; and Krishna’s decisions raise difficult questions about consequences and the lesser evil.

Above all, the Mahabharata presents dharma as a complex process of moral reasoning rather than a mechanical rulebook. It recognises that law, morality, rights, duties, authority and justice may sometimes conflict.

Modern Indian law resolves such questions through constitutional principles, legislation and judicial institutions, but the underlying jurisprudential concerns remain familiar. This makes the Mahabharata a valuable source for understanding the philosophical questions that continue to shape Indian jurisprudence, law and justice.

Note: This article was originally written by Rohan Kapoor (Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad) and published on 18 June 2020. It was subsequently updated by the LawBhoomi team on 14 Aug 2026.