History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c20.179

v2.c20.179

(12) According to Gaut.³⁵⁰ (XIII. 4) a brāhmaṇa could not be cited as a witness by a litigant who was not a brāhmaṇa and the king would not summon him, provided he (the brāhmaṇa) was not an attesting witness on a document. Nārada (ṛṇādāna verse 158) lays down that³⁵¹ 'śrotriyas, those engaged in austerities, old men, those who have become ascetics, are not to be witnesses because the authoritative texts so prescribe but there is no cause assigned for this rule.' So Nārada's view was that a śrotriya could never be cited as a witness by any litigant (even by a brāhmaṇa litigant). Gaut. impliedly shows that even a śrotriya could be cited as a witness by a brāhmaṇa. Manu VIII. 65, Viṣṇu Dh. S. VIII. 2 also forbid citing a śrotriya as a witness.