The Indian legal system possesses a significant reservoir of traditional sources, which manifest in the forms of Hindu Dharmashastra, Islamic Sharia, tribal customs, and other local practices. Notwithstanding the presence of this rich heritage, Indian law is fundamentally based on colonial oppression and the imposition of a uniform legal structure upon a diverse community. The marginalization of Traditional Indian Legal Knowledge and Legal Pluralism by colonial legislation has rendered the law disconnected from social realities, particularly within communities that maintain time-honoured traditions and customary practices. This Blog explains how the legal pluralism codification of traditional Indian legal knowledge, encompassing tribal epistemologies within constitutional frameworks, may serve as a redemptive measure to systemic alienation, discrimination, and governance inefficiencies. It proposes an inclusive model that honors Legal pluralism while upholding constitutional values over secessionist legal systems. Furthermore, the blog elucidates how traditional sources offer both legislative and legal solutions to contemporary legal challenges, including competition law, contract law, international law, and governance. The authors conduct a comparative analysis of Canadian Aboriginal laws, Australian indigenous laws, and South African law. Readers must grasp that recognizing and codifying these traditions without relegating them to outdated expressions could enhance both the efficacy of justice delivery and social cohesion in an ever-evolving society.

Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, stated that, Well-being and good are not general terms for a single idea or group. In general, the co-existence of multiple or many values in a society, community, and country is known as pluralism. Legal pluralism also provides a mechanism for dwelling into the fact that people frequently face more than one system of laws and customs at a time, and the relationship among these legal institutions can help explain people’s behaviour. The policies support pluralism, but the challenge lies in balancing being responsive to the diverse and changing contents of the state.

These frameworks encompass both formal laws, such as written policies, judicial decisions, and regulations, as well as informal customary rules, which are unwritten but still enforceable through societal sanctions. Legal Pluralism has to be mandated to encourage the progressive development of customary law and its codification. The progressive development of customary law encompasses the drafting of legal rules in fields that have not yet been regulated by law or sufficiently addressed in State practice. In contrast, codification refers to the more precise formulation and systematization of rules with traditional legal knowledge on subjects that have already been extensively covered by State practice, precedent, and doctrine.

Another significant obstacle is the absence of written records and the vast diversity of traditional laws. For instance, Nyaya panchayats in Rajasthan function differently from those in Gujarat, while inheritance customs vary substantially between the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools. Absent comprehensive ethnographic surveys and participatory mapping, codification risks oversimplifying or misrepresenting complex traditions. The lack of clear documentation poses challenges in authentically translating unwritten practices into enforceable statutes.

Globalization and International Norms Pressure In the context of globalization, international human rights standards increasingly exert influence on national legal frameworks. Instruments such as the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) advocate for uniformity in areas such

For example, India’s statutory reforms regarding consumer protection and the prohibition of child marriage supersede certain traditional practices. While global norms champion progressive values, they also risk marginalizing grassroots legal wisdom if not carefully balanced. Although these barriers are considerable, they do not diminish the imperative for codification. Rather, they underscore the necessity for a meticulously crafted, consultative, and rights-sensitive approach to the codification of traditional legal knowledge. Codification must be perceived not as rigid preservation or haphazard standardization, but as a democratic endeavour of legal empowerment, cultural respect, and constitutional integrity.

The codification of customary and traditional laws should be explored to bring local fairness, morality, and ethical principles into regulatory frameworks for digital markets. Decentralized governance models from tribal legal traditions could inspire alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in law enforcement. The decentralisation should be conducted as participatory of the community as possible and anti-secessionist, according to the Bhuria committee. There is a need to develop an inclusive and adaptive settlement mechanism that addresses modern suppressant behaviours by digital platforms while integrating traditional legal principles and customary law concepts into modern competition, consumer, and environmental law frameworks. The authors suggest that the government embrace a comparative jurisprudence approach by integrating Canada’s reconciliation model, Australia’s dual justice principles, and South Africa’s recognition of customary law. The author intends to inculcate the traditional ideas of indian customs into the legislation, which is rich in heritage and much suitable to the society. The objective should not only be to enforce fair, healthy, and prosperous laws but also to ensure that Indigenous and local economic ethics are preserved within digital economies. Legal pluralism should be applied to combat monopolistic tendencies while allowing local business ethics and economic customs to shape fair trade policies. Occupational licensing reforms must consider customary trade practices, ensuring that entry barriers do not disproportionately exclude traditional businesses from the digital economy.

The tribal community and land acquisition problems in India are two sides of the same coin; the community primarily relies on Agriculture, forestry, and cultivation, thus land plays a crucial role in their livelihood. The land Acquisition of the tribal community through the statutory laws (er, National Highways Act, 1956) Despite judicial interventions, the existing legal framework remains insufficient in safeguarding tribal communities, highlighting the urgent need for reforms that ensure fair compensation and promote their sustainable preservation and governance. The development-induced displacement of the tribal community collapses their customary and traditional identity. A comprehensive approach towards the Codification of conventional legal knowledge must be applied in the Indian justice system.

The Legal Plularism embeds robust concepts of contractual law, which provides a balanced approach between legal obligations and moral responsibilities. Texts like the Manusmriti emphasize that promises made voluntarily and in good faith, whether written or oral, are binding if rooted in truth (satya) and righteousness (dharma), closely resembling modern principles of consent, consideration, and capacity. The Arthashastra, on the other hand, provides details on commercial transactions such as loans, pledges, agency, and partnerships, as well as penalties for breach of contracts. It not only anticipates elements of modern notarization and enforceability, but it also addresses the social oral contract with oral witnesses, which ensures dispute resolution for all types of legal contracts22 . Islamic jurisprudence’s doctrine of ‘aqd (contract) similarly centers on mutual consent (ijab and qabul), lawful object, and good faith disclosure, mirroring many provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, yet no recognition or credits are provided.

Endnotes:

1. CIFOR, Chapter 3: Legal Pluralism and Policies Supporting Pluralism, in Forests and Governance 35 (2005), https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep02047.7.
2. United Nations, Codification and Progressive Development of International Law, U.N. Codification Div., https://legal.un.org/cod/ (last visited June 19, 2025).