{"id":120352,"date":"1966-01-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-01-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966"},"modified":"2017-06-25T11:43:54","modified_gmt":"2017-06-25T06:13:54","slug":"sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966","title":{"rendered":"Sastri Yagnapurushadji And … vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And … on 14 January, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sastri Yagnapurushadji And … vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And … on 14 January, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1119, \t\t 1966 SCR (3) 242<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Ramaswami, V., Satyanarayanaraju, P.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSASTRI YAGNAPURUSHADJI AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMULDAS BRUDARDAS VAISHYA AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/01\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSATYANARAYANARAJU, P.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1119\t\t  1966 SCR  (3) 242\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1983 SC   1\t (19,129)\n R\t    1984 SC  51\t (8)\n R\t    1988 SC1531\t (64)\n\n\nACT:\nBombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry  Authorisations\nAct (31 of 1956), s. 3-Validity.\nHindu-Who is.\nPractice-Vakalanama in favour of an Advocate-Presentation of\nappeal by another advocate working in his chambers-If  valid\npresentation.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellants, who are the followers of  the\tSwaminarayan\nsect  and known at Satsangis, filed a  representative  suit:\n(i)  for a declaration that the relevant provisions  of\t the\nBombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947, as amended by Act  77\nof  1948,  did\tnot apply to  their  temples,  because,\t the\nreligion of the Swaminarayan sect was distinct and different\nfrom Hindu religion and because, the relevant provisions  of\nthe  Act,  were\t ultra vires, and  (ii)\t for  an  injunction\nrestraining  the  1st  respondent  and\tother  non  Satsangi\nHarijans  from entering the Swaminarayan temple.  The  Trial\nCourt decreed the suit.\t Pending the 1st respondent's appeal\nin the High Court, the Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship\n(Entry\tAuthorisation) Act, 1956, was passed, and since\t the\n1947 Act gave place to the 1956 Act, it became necessary  to\nconsider  whether  the 1956 Act was intra vires.   The\tHigh\nCourt allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that\nthe  followers\tof  the Swaminarayan  sect  professed  Hindu\nreligion  and  that  the Act of\t 1956  was  constitutionally\nvalid.\nIn appeal to this Court it was contended that : (i) the High\nCourt  erred  in  treating the 1st  respondent's  appeal  as\ncompetent  when\t the  vakalatnama filed on  his\t behalf\t was\ninvalid\t (ii)  s. 3 of the 1956 Act was ultra  vires  as  it\ncontravened  Art. 26(b) of the Constitution; and  (iii)\t the\nreligion of the Swaminarayan sect was distinct and  separate\nfrom Hindu religion and that therefore the temples belonging\nto that sect did not fall within the ambit of the 1956 Act.\nHELD:\t  (i)  The  appeal to the High\tCourt  was  properly\npresented.\nTechnically  the  memorandum  of  appeal  presented  by\t the\nAssistant Government Pleader on behalf of the 1st respondent\nsuffered  from\tan infirmity, because,\tthe  1st  respondent\nsigned the vakalatnama in favour of the Government  Pleader.\nBut,  since  the Registry had not returned  the\t appeal\t for\ncorrecting  the\t irregularity,\tand  since  r.\t95  of\t the\nAppellate  Side\t Rules\tof  the\t High  Court  authorises  an\nadvocate   to  appear  even  without  initially\t  filing   a\nvakalatnama,  the  High\t Court was  right  in  allowing\t the\nGovernment Pleader to sign the memorandum of appeal and\t the\nvakalatnarna, in order to remove the irregularity. [251 E-G;\n252 A-C]\n(ii) There  is\tno  substance in the contention\t that  s.  3\ncontravenes Art. 26(b) of the Constitution and is  therefore\nultra vires.\n\t\t\t    243\nThe right to enter temples which has been vouchsafed to\t the\nHarijans by the impugned Act substance symbolises the  right\nof Harijans to enjoys all social amenities  and rights, for,\nsocial\tjustice is the main foundation of   the\t  democratic\nway  of\t life  enshrined in the\t provisions  of\t the  Indian\nConstitution.\tAfter the Constitution came into force,\t the\nwhole  social and religious outlook of the  Hindu  community\nhas  undergone\ta  fundamental change as  a  result  of\t the\nmessage\t of  social equality and justice proclaimed  by\t the\nConstitution; and the solemn promise in Art. 17,  abolishing\nuntouchability has been gradually, but irresistibly enforced\nby  the\t process  of  law  assisted  by\t enlightened  public\nconscience.  All that s. 3 of the 1956 Act purports to do is\nto give the Harijans the same right to enter the temple\t for\ndarshan of the deity as can be claimed by the other  Hindus.\nThe  act  of actual worship of the diety is  allowed  to  be\nperformed only by the authorised poojaris of the temple\t and\nby  no\tother  devotee\tentering  the  temple  for  darshan.\nTherefore, it was nont intended to invade the tradition\t and\nconventional manner of performing the actual worship of\t the\nidol.\n(iii)\t  The  High  Court  was\t right\tin  coming  to\t the\nconclusion  that  the religion of the Swaminarayan  sect  is\nnot,   distinct\t and  separate\tfrom  Hindu  religion,\t and\nconsequently,  the  temples belonging to the sect  did\tfall\nwithin the ambit of s. 2 of the Act.\nThe  Indian  mind has consistently through  the\t ages,\tbeen\nexercised,  over the problem of the nature of  godhead,\t the\nproblem\t that faces the spirit at the end of life,  and\t the\ninterrelation between the individual and the universal soul.\nAccording to Hindu religion the ultimate goal of humanity is\nrelease\t and freedom from the unceasing cycle of births\t and\nrebirths  and a state of absorption and assimilation of\t the\nindividual  soul with the infinite.  On the means to  attain\nthis  and  there  is  a\t great\tdivergence  of\tviews;\tsome\nemphasise  the importance of Gyana, while others  extol\t the\nvirtue of Bhakti or devotion, and yet others insist upon the\nparamount  importance  of the performance of duties  with  a\nheart  full of devotion and in mind inspired  by  knowledge.\nNaturally  it was realised by Hindu religion from  the\tvery\nbeginning  of  its  career that\t truth\twas  many-sided\t and\ndifferent  views contained different aspects of truth  which\nno one could fully express.  This knowledge inevitably\tbred\na  spirit  of tolerance and willingness\t to  understand\t and\nappreciate  the opponent's point of view.  Because  of\tthis\nbroad  sweep  of  Hindu\t philosophic  concept  under   Hindu\nphilosophy, there is no scope for excommunicating any notion\nor  principle  as heretical and rejecting it as\t such.\t The\ndevelopment of Hindu religion and philosophy shows that from\ntime  to  time saints and religious reformers  attempted  to\nremove\tfrom  Hindu  thought  and  practices,  elements\t  of\ncorruption  and\t superstition,\tand  revolted  against\t the\ndominance  of  rituals and the power of the  priestly  class\nwith  which  it came to be associated; and that led  to\t the\nformation  of  different  sects. in the\t teaching  of  these\nsaintns\t and  religious reformers is  noticeable  a  certain\namount\t of  divergence\t in  their  respective\tviews;\t but\nunderneath that divergence lie certain broad concepts  which\ncan  be\t treated  as basic, and there is a  kind  of  subtle\nindescribable  unity  which keeps them within the  sweep  of\nbroad and progressive Hindu religion.  The first among these\nbasic concepts is the acceptance of the Vedas as the highest\nauthority  in  religious  and  philosophic  matters.\tThis\nconcept\t necessarily implies that all the systems  claim  to\nhave  drawn  their principles from a  common,  reservoir  of\nthought\t enshrined in the Vedas.  Unlike other religions  in\nthe  world,  the  Hindu\t religion does\tnot  claim  any\t one\nprophet;  it  does  no( worship any one\t God;  it  does\t not\nsubscribe to any one dogma;it does\n244\nnot  believe  in any one philosophic concept;  it  does\t not\nfollow\tany one set of religious rites or  performances;  in\nfact,  it  does not satisfy the traditional  features  of  a\nreligion  or creed.  It is a way of life and  nothing  more.\nThe  Constitution makers were fully conscious, of the  broad\nand  comprehensive  character of Hindu religion;  and  while\nguaranteeing  the fundamental right to freedom\tof  religion\nmade it clear that reference to Hindus shall be construed as\nincluding a reference to persons professing the Sikh,  Jaina\nor Buddhist religion.\nPhilosophically, Swaminarayan was a follower of Ramanuja and\nthe essence of his teachings is acceptance of the Vedas with\nreverence,  recognition of the fact that the path of  Bhakti\nor devotion leads to Maksha, insistence or devotion to Loard\nKrishna and a determination to remove corrupt practices\t and\nrestore\t Hindu\tReligion to its original glory\tand  purity.\nThis shows unambiguously and unequivocally that Swaminarayan\nwas  a Hindu saint.  Further, the facts that  initiation  is\nnecessary  to  become  a Satsangi,  that  persons  of  other\nreligions  could  join the sect by  initiation\twithout\t any\nprocess\t of  proselytising  on\tsuch  occasions,  and\tthat\nSwaminarayan   himself\tis  treated  as\t a  God,   are\t not\ninconsistent with the basic Hindu religious and\t philosophic\ntheory.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 517 of 1964.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and decree, dated October 3,\t1958
\nof the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 107 of 52.
\nVasant J. Desai, M. L. Bhalja and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
C.   K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, Atiqur Rehman and K. L.
\nHathi,\t  for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
C.   K.\t Daphtary, Attorney-General, N. S. Bindra and B.  R.
\nG. K. Achar, for respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
S.   V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, and B. R. G. K. Achar, for
\nthe intervener.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGajendragadkar, C.J. The principal question which arises  in
\nthis  appeal is whether the Bombay High Court was  right  in
\nholding that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya (sect) to which the
\nappellants  belong, is not a religion distinct and  separate
\nfrom  the Hindu religion, and that the temples belonging  to
\nthe said sect do come within the ambit of the provisions  of
\nthe   Bombay   Hindu  Places  of  Public   Worship   (Entry-
\nAuthorisation)\tAct,  1956  (No. 31  of\t 1956)\t(hereinafter
\ncalled\t‘the Act’).  The suit from which the present  appeal
\narises was instituted by the appellants on the 12th January,
\n1948,  in  the\tCourt  of  the\tJoint  Civil  Judge,  Senior
\nDivision,  Ahmedabad.  Before the suit was  instituted,\t the
\nBombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947 (No. 35 of 1947)
\n 245<\/span>
\n(Hereinafter called ‘the former Act’) had come into force on
\nthe  23rd November, 1947.  The appellants are the  followers
\nof the Swaminarayan sect, and are known as Satsangis.\tThey
\nhave  filed the present suit on behalf of themselves and  on
\nbehalf of the Satsangis of the Northern Diocese of the\tsect
\nat  Ahmedabad.\t They  apprehended that\t respondent  No.  1,
\nMuldas\tBhudardas Vaishya, who is the President of the\tMaha
\nGujarat\t Dalit\tSangh at Ahmedabad, intended to\t assert\t the
\nrights of the non-Satsangi Harijans to enter the temples  of
\nthe  Swaminarayan sect situated in the Northern\t Diocese  at
\nAhmedabad in exercise of the legal rights conferred on\tthem
\nby  s. 3 of the former Act of 1947.  Section 3 of  the\tsaid
\nAct had provided, inter alia, that every temple to which the
\nAct  applied  shall be open to Harijans for worship  in\t the
\nsame  manner  and  to the same extent  as  other  Hindus  in
\ngeneral.   To  this suit the appellants had  impleaded\tfive
\nother respondents, amongst whom was included the Province of
\nBombay as respondent No. 4, under the order of the Court  at
\na later stage of the proceedings on the 18th July, 1949.  In
\ntheir\tplaint,\t  the  appellants  had\talleged\t  that\t the
\nSwaminarayan temple of Sree Nar Narayan Dev of Ahmedabad and
\nall  the temples subordinate thereto are not temples  within
\nthe  meaning  of the former Act.  Their case, was  that\t the
\nSwaminarayan   sect  represents\t a  distinct  and   separate
\nreligious  sect\t unconnected  with  the\t Hindus\t and   Hindu
\nreligion,  and\tas  such, their\t temples  were\toutside\t the
\npurview\t of  the  said\tAct.  On  the  basis  of  this\tmain
\nallegation,  the  appellants claimed a\tdeclaration  to\t the
\neffect that the relevant provisions of the said Act did\t not
\napply  to their temples.  In the alternative, it  was  urged
\nthat  the  said Act was ultra vires.  As  a  consequence  of
\nthese\ttwo  declarations,  the\t appellants  asked  for\t  an
\ninjunction  restraining\t respondent  No. 1  and\t other\tnon-
\nSatsangi  Harijans from entering the Swaminarayan temple  of
\nthe  Northern  Diocese of the Swaminarayan  sect;  and\tthey
\nprayed\tthat  an  appropriate injunction  should  be  issued
\ndirecting  respondents\t2 and 3 who are the Mahants  of\t the
\nsaid  temples to take steps to prevent respondent No. 1\t and
\nthe   other   non-Satsangi  Harijans   from   entering\t and
\nworshipping in the said temples.\n<\/p>\n
Pending\t these proceedings between the parties,\t the  former
\nAct was amended by Bombay Act No. 77 of 1948; and later, the
\nConstitution  of India came into force on the 26th  January,
\n1950.\tAs a result of these events, the appellants  applied
\nfor  an amendment of the plaint on the 30th November,  1950,
\nand  the said application was granted by the  learned  trial
\nJudge.\tIn consequence of
\n24 6
\nthis  amendment,  the appellants took the  plea\t that  their
\ntemples\t were not temples within the meaning of\t the  former
\nAct  as amended by Act No. 77 of 1948; and they\t urged\tthat
\nthe,  former Act was ultra vires the powers of the State  of
\nBombay inasmuch as it was inconsistent with the Constitution
\nand  the  fundamental  rights guaranteed  therein.   It\t was
\ncontended  by  them  that  the\tSwaminarayan  sect  was\t  an
\ninstitution distinct and different from Hindu religion, and,
\ntherefore,  the former Act as amended could not apply to  or
\naffect\tthe  temples of the said sect.\tOn  this  additional
\nground,\t the  appellants supported the\toriginal  claim\t for
\ndeclarations and injunctions made by them in their plaint as
\nit was originally filed.\n<\/p>\n
This suit was resisted by respondent No. 1. It was urged  on
\nhis  behalf  that the suit was not tenable at  law,  on\t the
\nground\tthat the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain\t the
\nsuit  under  s.\t 5  of the former  Act.\t  Respondent  No.  1
\ndisputed the appellants’ right to represent the Satsangis of
\nthe  Swaminarayan sect, and he averred. that many  Satsangis
\nwere in favour of the Harijans’ entry into the\tSwaminarayan
\ntemples, even though such Harijans were not the followers of
\nthe  Swaminarayan sect.\t According to him, the suit  temples
\nwere temples within the meaning of the former Act as amended
\nand  that non-Satsangi Harijans had a legal right  of  entry
\nand worship in the said temples.  The appellants’ case\tthat
\nthe  former  Act  was ultra vires, was\talso  challenged  by
\nrespondent  No. 1. Respondents 2 and 3, the Mahants  of\t the
\ntemples,  filed\t purshis  that they did not  object  to\t the
\nappellants’  claim,  while respondent No. 4,  the  State  of
\nBombay, and respondents 5 and 6 filed no written statements.
\nOn  these pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed  several
\nissues,\t and  parties led voluminous  documentary  and\toral
\nevidence in support of their respective contentions.   After
\nconsidering this evidence, the learned trial Judge held that
\nthe  suit was maintainable and was not barred under s. 5  of
\nthe  former  Act.  He found that the former  Act  was  intra
\nvires the legislative powers of the Bombay State and did not
\ninfringe   any\t fundamental  rights  of   the\t appellants.
\nAccording to him, the Swaminarayan sect was not distinct and
\ndifferent from Hindu religion and as such, the suit  temples
\nwere temples which were used as places of religious  worship
\nby the congregation of the Satsang which formed a section of
\nthe Hindu community.  The learned trial Judge, however, came
\nto the conclusion that it had not been established that\t the
\nsuit  temples were used by non-Satsangi Hindus as places  of
\nreligious  worship  by\tcustom,\t usage\tor  otherwise,\t and
\nconsequently, they did not
\n 247<\/span>
\ncome  within the meaning of the word “temple” as defined  by
\nthe  former Act.  Thus, the conclusion of the learned  trial
\nJudge on this part of the appellants’ case decided the\tfate
\nof  the suit in their favour, though findings were  recorded
\nby  the\t trial Judge in favour of respondent No.  1  on\t the
\nother  issues.\t In  the result, the trial  court  passed  a
\ndecree in favour of the appellants giving them\tdeclarations
\nand  injunctions  as  claimed by them.\t This  judgment\t was
\npronounced on the 24th September, 1951.\n<\/p>\n
The  proceedings  in  the trial court  were  protracted\t and
\nlasted\tfor nearly three years, because interim\t proceedings
\nwhich  led to certain interlocutory orders,  were  contested
\nbetween the parties and were taken to the High Court on\t two
\noccasions before the suit was finally determined.
\nThe decision of the trial court on the merits was challenged
\nby  Respondent\tNo.  4 and respondent No. 1  who  joined  in
\nfiling\tthe  appeal.  The appeal thus presented by  the\t two
\nrespondents  was heard by the High Court on the\t 8th  March,
\n1957.\tAt  this hearing, two  preliminary  objections\twere
\nraised\t by  the  appellants  against  the  competence\t and
\nmaintainability of the appeal itself.  It was urged that the
\nappeal\tpreferred  by respondent No. 4\twas  not  competent,
\ninasmuch  as respondent No. 4 had no locus standi to  prefer
\nthe  appeal in view of the fact that the former Act  in\t the
\nvalidity  of which respondent No. 4 was\t vitally  interested
\nhad  been held to be valid.  This objection was\t upheld\t and
\nthe appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 was dismissed.
\nIn  regard to the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1,\t the
\nappellants  contended  that  the Vakalatnama  filed  on\t his
\nbehalf was invalid and as such, the appeal purported to have
\nbeen  preferred on his behalf was incompetent.\t It  appears
\nthat respondent No.  1 had authorised the Government Pleader
\nto  file  an appeal on his behalf, whereas  the\t appeal\t had
\nactually  been\tfiled  by  Mr. Daundkar\t who  was  then\t the
\nAssistant Government Pleader.  The High Court rejected\tthis
\nobjection and held that the technical Irregularity on  which
\nthe  objection\twas founded could be cured by  allowing\t the
\nGovernment   Pleader  to  sign\tthe  memorandum\t of   appeal
\npresented  on  behalf  of  respondent  No.  1  and   endorse
\nacceptance of his Vakalatnama.\n<\/p>\n
Having thus held that the appeal preferred by respondent No.
\n1  was competent, the High Court proceeded to  consider\t the
\nmerits\tof  the said appeal.  It was urged before  the\tHigh
\nCourt  by  respondent  No.  1  that  the  declarations\t and
\ninjunctions  granted to the appellants could not be  allowed
\nto stand in view of the Untouch
\n10Sup.CI\/63–3
\n248<\/span>
\nability (Offences) Act, 1955 (Central Act 22 of 1955)  which
\nhad  come  into\t force on the 8th May, 1955  and  which\t had
\nrepealed  the  former  Act.  This contention  did  not\tfind
\nfavour\twith the High Court, because it took the  view\tthat
\nthe declarations and injunctions granted by the trial  court
\nwere not based on the provisions of the former Act, but were
\nbased on the view that the rights of the appellants were not
\naffected  by the said Act.  The High Court observed that  in
\ndealing\t with the objections raised by respondent No. 1,  it
\nwas unnecessary to consider whether on the merits, the\tview
\ntaken  by the trial court was right or not.  The only  point
\nwhich  was relevant for disposing of the said objection\t was
\nto   consider  whether\tany  relief  had  been\tgranted\t  to
\nthe.appellants\tunder  the provisions of the former  Act  or
\nnot;  and since the reliefs granted to the  appellants\twere
\nnot under any of the said provisions, but were in fact based
\non  the\t view that the provisions of the said  Act  did\t not
\napply to the temples in suit, it could not be said that\t the
\nsaid   reliefs\tcould  not  survive  the  passing   of\t the
\nUntouchability\t(Offences)  Act,  1955.\t  The  High   Court,
\nhowever,  noticed that after the trial court pronounced\t its
\njudgments, the Bombay Legislature had passed the Act (No. 31
\nof  1956)  and respondent No. 1 naturally  relied  upon\t the
\nmaterial  provisions  of this Act contained in s.  3.  Thus,
\nthough the substance of the controversy between the  parties
\nremained  the same, the field of the dispute  was  radically
\naltered.   The former Act had given place to the Act and  it
\nnow  became necessary to consider whether the Act was  intra
\nvires,\tand  if yes, whether it applied to  the\t temples  in
\nsuit.\tHaving\tregard to this altered\tposition,  the\tHigh
\nCourt took the view that it was necessary to issue a  notice
\nto  the\t Advocate-General under O.27A of the Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure.  Accordingly, a notice was issued to the Advocate
\nGeneral\t and the appeal was placed before the High Court  on
\nthe 25th March, 1957 again.  At this hearing, the High Court
\nsent  the  case\t back to the trial  court  for\trecording  a
\nfinding\t on the issue ”\t whether the Swaminarayan temple  at
\nAhmedabad  and\tthe temples subordinate\t thereto  are  Hindu
\nreligious institutions within the meaning of Art. 25 (2) (b)
\nof the Constitution”.  Both parties were allowed liberty  to
\nlead additional evidence on this issue.\n<\/p>\n
After remand, the appellants did not lead any oral evidence,
\nbut  respondent\t No. 1 examined two witnesses  Venibhai\t and
\nKeshavlal.  Keshavlal failed to appear for his final  cross-
\nexamination despite adjournments even though the trial court
\nhad appointed a Commission to record his evidence.  Nothing,
\nhowever,  turned  upon this oral evidence.   In\t the  remand
\nproceedings,
\n 249<\/span>
\nit was not disputed before the trial court that the  temples
\nin  suit  were\tpublic\treligious  institutions.   The\tonly
\nquestion which was argued before the court was whether\tthey
\ncould  be regarded as Hindu temples or not,  The  appellants
\ncontended  that the suit temples were meant exclusively\t for
\nthe followers of the Swaminarayan sect; and these followers,
\nit  was\t urged,\t did not profess the  Hindu  religion.\t The
\nlearned\t trial Judge, however, adhered to the  view  already
\nexpressed   by\this  predecessor  before  remand  that\t the
\ncongregation  of Satsang constituted a section of the  Hindu
\ncommunity;  and\t so  he found that it was not  open  to\t the
\nappellants  to contend before him that the followers of\t the
\nSwaminarayan sect were not a section of the Hindu community.
\nIn  regard to the nature of the temples, the  learned  trial
\nJudge considered the evidence adduced on the record by\tboth
\nthe parties and came to the conclusion that the Swaminarayan
\ntemples\t at  Ahmedabad and the temples\tsubordinate  thereto
\nwere Hindu religious institutions within the meaning of Art.
\n25  (2) (b) of the Constitution.  This finding was  recorded
\nby the trial Judge on the 24th March 1958.\n<\/p>\n
After this finding was submitted by the learned trial  Judge
\nto  the\t High  Court,  the Appeal was  taken  up  for  final
\ndisposal.   On’ this occasion, it was urged before the\tHigh
\nCourt on behalf of the appellants that the members belonging
\nto the Swaminarayan sect did not profess the Hindu  religion
\nand, therefore, their temples could not be said to be  Hindu
\ntemples.  It was, however, conceded on their behalf that  in
\ncase  the  High\t Court\tcame  to  the  conclusion  that\t the
\nSwaminarayan   sect  was  not  a  different  religion\tfrom
\nHinduism,  the\tconclusion could not be\t resisted  that\t the
\ntemples\t in suit would be Hindu religious  institutions\t and
\nalso places of public worship within the meaning of s. 2  of
\nthe   Act.   That  is  how  the\t main  question\t which\t was
\nelaborately  argued  before the High Court was\twhether\t the
\nfollowers of the Swaminarayan sect could be said to  profess
\nHindu  religion\t and be regarded as Hindus or not.   It\t was
\nurged  by the appellants that the Satsangis who\t worship  at
\nthe  Swaminarayan  temple  may be Hindus  for  cultural\t and
\nsocial\tpurposes, but they are not persons professing  Hindu
\nreligion,  and as such they do not form a section, class  or
\nsect or denomination of Hindu religion.\t Broadly stated, the
\ncase for the appellants was placed before the High Court  on
\nfour grounds.  It was argued that Swaminarayan, the  founder
\nof  the sect, considered himself as the Supreme God, and  as
\nsuch. the sect that believes in the divinity of Swaminarayan
\ncannot\tbe assimilated to the followers of  Hindu  religion.
\nIt  was\t also  urged  that the\ttemples\t in  suit  had\tbeen
\nestablished for the worship of
\n250<\/span>
\nSwaminarayan  himself  and  not\t for  the  worship  of\t the
\ntraditional  Hindu  idols, and that again  showed  that\t the
\nSatsangi sect was distinct and separate from Hindu religion.
\nIt was further contended that the sect propagated the  ideal
\nthat  worship of any God other than Swaminarayan would be  a
\nbetrayal  of his faith, and lastly , that the  Acharyas\t who
\nhad  been appointed by Swaminarayan adopted a  procedure  of
\n“Initiation”  (diksha) which showed that on initiation,\t the
\ndevotee\t became\t a  Satsangi  and  assumed  a  distinct\t and
\nseparate character as a follower of the sect.
\nThe  High Court has carefully examined these contentions  in
\nthe light of the teachings of Swaminarayan, and has come  to
\nthe  conclusion\t that  it was impossible to  hold  that\t the
\nfollowers  of  the Swaminarayan sect did not  profess  Hindu
\nreligion and did not form a part of the Hindu community.  In
\ncoming to this conclusion, the High Court has also  examined
\nthe  oral  evidence  on which  the  parties  relied.   While
\nconsidering  this aspect of the matter, the High Court\ttook
\ninto  account  the  fact that in their\tplaint\titself,\t the
\nappellants  had described themselves as Hindus and  that  on
\nthe  occasion  of  previous  censuses  prior  to  1951\twhen
\nreligion  and  community used to be  indicated\tin  distinct
\ncolumns\t in, the treatment of census data, the followers  of
\nthe  sect  raised no objection to their being  described  as
\nbelonging to a sect professing Hindu religion.
\nHaving\tthus  rejected\tthe main contention  raised  by\t the
\nappellants  in challenging their status as Hindus, the\tHigh
\nCourt  examined the alternative argument which was urged  on
\ntheir behalf in regard to the constitutional validity of the
\nAct.   The argument was that the material provision  of\t the
\nAct was inconsistent with the fundamental rights  guaranteed
\nby  Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and as  such\t was
\ninvalid.  The High Court did not feet\timpressed  by\tthis
\nargument and felt no difficulty in rejecting it.  In\t the
\nresult, the finding recorded by the trial Judge in favour of
\nthe  appellants in regard to their status and  character  as
\nfollowers  of the Swaminarayan sect was\t upheld;  inevitably
\nthe  decree  passed by the trial Judge was vacated  and\t the
\nsuit  instituted  by  the  appellants  was  ordered  to\t  be
\ndismissed.   It\t is  against this decree  that\tthe  present
\nappeal\thas  been  brought to this Court  on  a\t certificate
\nissued by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
Before dealing with the principal point which has been posed
\nat  the\t commencement of this Judgment, it is  necessary  to
\ndispose\t of two minor contentions raised by Mr. V. J.  Desai
\nwho appeared
\n 251<\/span>
\nfor the appellants before us.  ‘Mr.  Desai contends that the
\nHigh Court Was in error in treating as competent ‘the appeal
\npreferred  by respondent No. 1. His case is that  since\t the
\nsaid  appeal  had  not been duly and  validly  filed  by  an
\nAdvocate authorised by respondent No. 1 in that behalf,\t the
\nHigh  Court should have dismissed the said appeal  as  being
\nincompetent.   It will be recalled that the appeal  memo  as
\nwell  as the Vakalatnama filed along with it were signed  by
\nMr.  Daundkar who was then the Asstt.\tGovernment  Pleader;
\nand  the  argument is that since the  Vakalatnama  had\tbeen
\nsigned\tby  respondent\tNo. 1 in favour\t of  the  Government
\nPleader, its acceptance by the Assistant Government  Pleader
\nwas invalid and that rendered the presentation of the appeal
\nby the Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of  respondent
\nNo. 1 incompetent. O.41, r. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
\nrequires,  inter alia, that every appeal shall be  preferred
\nin  the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or\t his
\nPleader and presented to the Court or to such officer as  it
\nappoints  in that behalf. O. 3, r. 4 of the Code relates  to
\nthe  appointment of a Pleader.\tSub-r. (1) of the said\tRule
\nprovides,  inter  alia\tthat no Pleader shall  act  for\t any
\nperson\tin  any court unless he has been appointed  for\t the
\npurpose\t by such person by a document in writing  signed  by
\nsuch  person.  Sub-r. (2) adds that every  such\t appointment
\nshall  be filed in court and shall be deemed to be in  force
\nuntil  determined with the leave of the Court in the  manner
\nindicated  by it. Technically, it may be conceded  that\t the
\nmemorandum of appeal presented by Mr. Daundkar suffered from
\nthe   infirmity\t that  respondent  No.\t1  had\tsigned\t his
\nVakalatnama  in\t favour of the Government  Pleader  and\t Mr.
\nDaundkar  could not have accepted It, though he was  working
\nin   the  Government  Pleader’s\t office\t as   an   Assistant
\nGovernment Pleader.  Even so, the said memo was accepted  by
\nthe  office  of the Registrar of the Appellate Side  of\t the
\nHigh  Court, because the Registry regarded the\tpresentation
\nof  the\t appeal to be proper, the appeal was in\t due  course
\nadmitted and it finally came up for hearing before the\tHigh
\nCourt.\tThe failure of the Registry to invite the  attention
\nof  the\t Assistant Government Pleader  to  the\tirregularity
\ncommitted  in the presentation of the said appeal cannot  be
\nsaid  to be irrelevant in dealing with the validity  of\t the
\ncontention  raised  by the appellants. if the  Registry\t had
\nreturned   the\tappeal\tto  Mr.\t Daundkar   as\t irregularly
\npresented,  the\t irregularity could  have  been\t immediately
\ncorrected and the Government Pleader would have signed\tboth
\nthe memo of appeal and the Vakalatnama.\t It is an elementary
\nrule of justice that no party should suffer for the  mistake
\nof  the\t court\tor its Office.\tBesides, one  of  the  rules
\nframed by the High Court
\n252<\/span>
\non its Appellate Side-Rule 95-seems to authorise an Advocate
\npractising on the Appellate Side of the High Court to appear
\neven without initially filing a Vakalatnama in that  behalf.
\nIf  an\tappeal\tis  presented  by  an  Advocate\t without   a
\nVakalatnama duly signed by the appellant, he is required  to
\nproduce\t the  Vakalatnama  authorising him  to\tpresent\t the
\nappeal\tor to file a statement signed by himself  that\tsuch
\nVakalatnama  has been duly signed by the appellant in  time.
\nIn  this case, the Vakalatnama had evidently been signed  by
\nrespondent  No.\t 1 in favour of the  Government\t Pleader  in
\ntime;  and so, the High Court was plainly right in  allowing
\nthe  Government Pleader to sign the memo of appeal  and\t the
\nVakalatnama in order to remove the irregularity committed in
\nthe  presentation of the appeal.  We do not think  that\t Mr.
\nDesai is justified in contending that the High Court was  in
\nerror  in overruling the objection raised by the  appellants
\nbefore it that the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1\t was
\nincompetent.\n<\/p>\n
The  next contention which Mr. Desai has urged before us  is
\nthat  s. 3 of the Act is ultra vires.  Before  dealing\twith
\nthis  contention, it is relevant to refer to the  series  of
\nActs which have been passed by the Bombay Legislature with a
\nview  to  remove the disabilities from\twhich  the  Harijans
\nsuffered.  A brief resume of the legislative history on this
\ntopic  would  be of interest not only in  dealing  with\t the
\ncontention raised by Mr. Desai about the invalidity of S. 3,
\nbut  in\t appreciating the sustained and\t deliberate  efforts
\nwhich the Legislature has been making to meet the  challenge
\nof untouchability.\n<\/p>\n
In  1958,  the Bombay Harijans Temple  Worship\t(Removal  of
\nDisabilities)  Act (No.\t 11 of 193 8) was passed.  This\t Act
\nrepresented  a\tsomewhat  cautious measure  adopted  by\t the
\nBombay\t Legislature   to   deal   with\t  the\tproblem\t  of
\nuntouchability.\t It made an effort to feel the pulse of\t the
\nHindu community in general and to watch its reactions to the
\nefforts which the Legislature may make, to break through the
\ncitadel\t of  orthodoxy, and conquer  traditional  prejudices
\nagainst\t Harijans.  This Act did not purport to\t create\t any
\nstatutory right which Harijans could enforce by claiming  an
\nentry  into  Hindu temples; it only purported to  make\tsome
\nenabling  provisions which would encourage  the\t progressive
\nelements  in the Hindu community to help the Legislature  in
\ncombating  the evil of untouchability.\tThe basic scheme  of
\nthis  Act was contained in sections 3, 4 & 5. The  substance
\nof  the provisions contained in these sections was  that  in
\nregard\tto temples. the trustees could by a majority make  a
\ndeclaration that
\n 253<\/span>
\ntheir temples would be open to Harijans notwithstanding\t the
\nterms  of  instrument of trust, the terms of  dedication  or
\ndecree or order of any competent court or any custom,  usage
\nor law for the time being in force to the contrary.  Section
\n3  dealt  with\tmaking of  these  declarations.\t  Section  4
\nrequired  the  publication of the said declarations  in\t the
\nmanner\tindicated  by it, and section 5\t authorised  persons
\ninterested  in the temple in respect of which a\t declaration
\nhad  been published under s. 4 to apply to the court to\t set
\naside  the  said declaration.  If. such\t an  application  is
\nreceived,  the jurisdiction has been conferred on the  court
\nto  deal with the said application.  Section  5(5)  provides
\nthat if the court is satisfied\t   that the applicant was  a
\nperson\tinterested  in\tthe temple  and\t that  the  impugned
\ndeclaration  was  shown not to have been  validly  made,  it
\nshall  set  aside the declaration; if the court\t is  not  so
\nsatisfied,  it shall dismiss the application.  Section\t5(7)
\nprovides  that\tthe decision of the Court under\t sub-s.\t (5)
\nshall be final and conclusive for the purposes of this\tAct.
\nThe court specially\t empowered   to\t deal\twith   these
\napplications  means  the  court\t of  a\tDistrict  Judge\t and
\nincludes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary Original
\nCivil jurisdiction.  The jurisdiction thus conferred on\t the
\ncourt is exclusive with the result that s. 6 bars any  Civil
\nCourt  to entertain any complaint in respect of the  matters
\ndecided by the court of exclusive jurisdiction purporting to
\nact  under  the\t provisions of this Act.  This\tAct  can  be
\nregarded  as the first step taken by the Bombay\t Legislature
\nto  remove  the\t disability  of\t untouchability\t from  which
\nHarijans  had  been  suffering.\t  The  object  of  this\t Act
\nobviously  was\tto invite cooperation from the\tmajority  of
\ntrustees  in  the  respective Hindu  temples  in  making  it
\npossible  for  the Harijans to enter the  said\ttemples\t and
\noffer\t  prayers in them.\n<\/p>\n
Then  followed Act No. 10 of 1947 which was passed  by\tthe,
\nBombay\tLegislature  to provide for the\t removal  of  social
\ndisabilities  of  Harijans.  This Act was  passed  with\t the
\nobject\tof  removing  the several  disabilities\t from  which
\nHarijans  suffered  in regard to the  enjoyment\t of  social,
\nsecular\t amenities of life.  Section 3 of this Act  declared
\nthat notwithstanding anything contained in any instrument or
\nany  law, custom or usage to the contrary, no Harijan  shall
\nmerely on the ground that he is a Harijan, be ineligible for
\noffice\tunder any authority constituted under any law or  be
\nprevented  from enjoying the amenities described by  clauses\n<\/p>\n
(b)  (i)  to  (vii).  The other sections of  this  Act\tmade
\nsuitable provisions to enforce the statutory right conferred
\non the Harijans by s. 3.\n<\/p>\n
     254<\/span><\/p>\n
   Next we come to the former Act-No. 35 of 1947. We haveA
\nalready\t seen that when the present plaint was filed by\t the
\nappellants,  they challenged the right of  the\tnon-satsangi
\nHarijans to    enter the temples under S. 3 of this Act, and
\nalternatively, they challenged\tits validity. This  Act\t was
\npassed to entitle the\t Harijans   to\tenter  and   perform
\nworship\t in the temples in the Province of  Bombay.  Section
\n2(a) of this Act defines a “Harijan”\tas meaning a  member
\nof a caste, race or tribe deemed to be a     Scheduled caste
\nunder the Government of India (Scheduled     Castes)  Order,
\n1936.  Section 2(b) defines “Hindus” as including Jains;  S.
\n2(c)  defines  “temples’  as meaning  a\t place\tby  whatever
\ndesignation known which is used as of right by, dedicated to
\nor  for\t the  benefit of the Hindus in\tgeneral\t other\tthan
\nHarijans  as  a\t place of public religious worship;  and  S.
\n2(b) defines   “Worship” as including attendance at a temple
\nfor the purpose of  darshan’ of a deity or deities installed
\nin or within the precincts    thereof.\t Section   3   which
\ncontains the main operative provision\tof  this  Act  reads
\nthus :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Notwithstanding\tanything  contained  in\t the
\n\t      terms of\t any instruments of trust, the terms
\n\t      of dedication, the   terms  of  a sanad  or  a
\n\t      decree or order of a competent court  or\t any
\n\t      custom, usage or law, for the time, being in  force
\n\t      to the contrary every temple shall be open to   Hari
\njans
\n\t      for worship in the same manner and to the\t  same
\n\t      extent as to any member of the Hindu community
\n\t      or any section thereof and the Harijans  shall
\n\t      be    entitled to bathe in, or use the  waters
\n\t      of any sacred   tank,  well, spring or  water-
\n\t      course in the same manner and   to  the\tsame
\n\t      extent as any member of the Hindu\t    Community
\n\t      or any section thereof.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section  4 provides for penalties. Section\t 5  excludes
\nthe  jurisdiction of Civil Courts to deal with any  suit  or
\nproceeding if it involves a claim which if granted would  in
\nany way be inconsistent with  the;provisions  of  this\tAct.
\nSection 6 authorises the police officer not  below the\trank
\nof Sub-Inspector to arrest without warrant any\t  person who
\n;is reasonably suspected of having committed an\t  offence
\npunishable under this Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 2(c) of the former Act was later amended by Act
\n77   of 1948. The definition of the word “temple” which\t was
\nthus inserted by the amending Act -reads thus :-
\n “Temple, means a place by whatever name known\t   and
\n\t      to  whomsoever belonging, which is used  as  a
\n\t      place
\n\t       2 5 5
\n\t      of  religious  worship  by  custom,  usage  or
\n\t      otherwise\t  by  the  members  of\t the   Hindu
\n\t      community or any section thereof and  includes
\n\t      all  land appurtenant thereto  and  subsidiary
\n\t      shrines attached to any such place.”\n<\/p>\n
It  will be recalled that after this amended definition\t was
\nintroduced  in the former Act, the appellants asked for\t and
\nobtained  permission  to amend their plaint, and it  is\t the
\nclaim  made  in the amended plaint by relation\tto  the\t new
\ndefinition  of the word “temple” that parties  led  evidence
\nbefore\tthe  trial court.  This act shows  that\t the  Bombay
\nLegislature  took the next step in 1947 and made a  positive
\ncontribution to the satisfactory solution of the problem  of
\nuntouchability.\t  It  conferred on the Harijans a  right  to
\nenter temples to which the Act applied and to offer  worship
\nin  them;  and we have already seen  that  worship  includes
\nattendance  at\tthe temple for the purpose of darshan  of  a
\ndeity or deities in the precincts thereof.
\nOn  the\t 26th January, 1950 the Constitution of\t India\tcame
\ninto  force, and Art. 17 of the\t Constitution  categorically
\nprovided  that untouchability is abolished and its  practice
\nin any form is forbidden.  The enforcement of any disability
\narising\t  out  of  “Untouchability”  shall  be\tan   offence
\npunishable  in\taccordance  with  law.\t In  a\tsense,\t the
\nfundamental   right  declared  by  Art,\t 17  afforded\tfull
\njustification  for the policy underlying the  provisions  of
\nthe former Act.\n<\/p>\n
After\tthe  Constitution  was\tthus  adopted,\t the-Central
\nLegislature  passed the Untouchability (Offences) Act,\t1955
\n(No. 22 of 1955).  This Act makes a comprehensive  provision
\nfor giving effect to the solemn declaration made by Art.  17
\nof  the\t Constitution.\tIt extends not -only  to  places  of
\npublic\t worship,   but\t  to  hotels,\tplaces\t of   public
\nentertainment,\tand shops as defined by s. 2 (a),  (b),\t (c)
\nand  (e).   Section 2 (d) of this Act defines  a  “place  of
\npublic\tworship” as meaning a place by whatever\t name  known
\nwhich  is  used as a place of public  religious\t worship  or
\nwhich  is dedicated generally to, or is used  generally\t by,
\npersons\t  professing  any  religion-or\tbelonging   to\t any
\nreligious  denomination\t or any section\t thereof,  for\t‘the
\nperformance  of\t any  religious\t service,  or  for  offering
\nprayers\t therein;  and\tincludes all  lands  and  subsidiary
\nshrines\t appurtenant  or attached to any  such\tplace.\t The
\nsweep of ‘the definitions prescribed by section 2  indicates
\nthe  very  broad field of  socio-religious  activities\tover
\nwhich  the mandatory provisions of this Act are intended  to
\noperate.   It is not necessary for our purpose to  refer  to
\nthe  provisions\t of this Act in detail.\t ‘It  is  enough  to
\nstate that ss. 3 to 7 of this Act provide
\n25 6
\ndifferent    punishments    for\t  contravention\t   of\t the
\nconstitutional\tguarantee for the removal of  untouchability
\nin   any   shape  or  form.   Having   thus   prescribed   a
\ncomprehensive\tstatutory   code   for\t the   removal\t  of
\nuntouchability, s. 17 of this Act repealed twenty one  State
\nActs which had been passed by the several State Legislatures
\nwith  the same object.\tAmongst the Acts thus  repealed\t are
\nBombay Acts 10 of 1947 and 35 of 1947.\n<\/p>\n
That  takes us to the Act No. 31 of 1956-with which  we\t are
\ndirectly concerned in the present appeal.  After the Central
\nAct 22 of 1955 was passed ‘and the relevant Bombay  statutes
\nof  1947 had been repealed by S. 17 of that Act, the  Bombay
\nLegislature  passed  the Act.  The Act is intended  to\tmake
\nbetter\tprovision for the throwing open of places of  public
\nworship\t to  all classes and sections of Hindus.   It  is  a
\nshort  Act  contain  8 sections.  Section  2  which  is\t the
\ndefinition section is very important; it reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requir
\nes,-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)”place\t of public worship’ means  a  place,
\n\t      whether a temple or by any other name  called,
\n\t      to whomsoever belonging which is dedicated to,
\n\t      or  for the benefit of, or is  used  generally
\n\t      by,  Hindus, Jains, Sikhs or Buddhists or\t any
\n\t      section or class thereof, for the\t performance
\n\t      of  any  religious  service  or  for  offering
\n\t      prayers  therein; and includes all  lands\t and
\n\t      subsidiary shrines appurtenant or attached  to
\n\t      any  such\t place, and also any  sacred  tanks,
\n\t      walls,  springs, and water courses the  waters
\n\t      of  which\t are  worshipped, or  are  used\t for
\n\t      bathing or for worship;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)”section” or “class” of Hindus includes any
\n\t      division, sub-division, caste, sub-caste, sect
\n\t      or denomination whatsoever of Hindus.”
\n\t      Section  3 is the operative provision  of\t the
\n\t      Act and it is necessary to read it also :
\n\t      “3.  Notwithstanding any custom, usage or\t law
\n\t      for the time being in force, or the decree  or
\n\t      order of a court, or anything contained in any
\n\t      instrument,  to the contrary, every  place  of
\n\t      public   worship\twhich  is  open\t to   Hindus
\n\t      generally, or to any section or class thereof,
\n\t      shall  be open to all sections and classes  or
\n\t      Hindus; and no Hindu of whatsoever section  or
\n\t      class,  shall  in\t any  manner  be  prevented,
\n\t      obstructed  or discouraged from entering\tsuch
\n\t      place of public worship, or from worship-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       257<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      ping or offering prayers threat, or performing
\n\t      any  religious  service therein, in  the\tlike
\n\t      manner  and  to the like extent as  any  other
\n\t      Hindu  of whatsoever section or class  may  so
\n\t      enter, worship, pray or perform.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 4(1) provides for penalties for the contravention of
\nthe provisions of the Act and s. 4(2) lays down that nothing
\nin  this  section  shall  be taken  to\trelate\tto  offences
\nrelating  to  the practice of “untouchability”.\t  Section  5
\ndeals  with the abetment of offences prescribed by s.  4(1).
\nSection\t 6 provides, inter alia, that no Civil\tCourt  shall
\npass any decree or order which in substance would in any way
\nbe contrary to the provisions of this Act.  Section 7  makes
\noffences prescribed by s. 4(1) cognisable, and\tcompoundable
\nwith the permission of the Court; and s. 8 provides that the
\nprovisions  of\tthis  Act  shall  not  be  taken  to  be  in
\nderogation  of any of the provisions of\t the  Untouchability
\n(Offences)  Act-22  of 1955-or any other law  for  the\ttime
\nbeing in force relating to any of the matters dealt with  in
\nthis  Act.  That in brief is the outline of the\t history  of
\nthe  Legislative efforts to combat and meet the\t problem  of
\nuntouchability\tand  to\t help Harijans to  secure  the\tfull
\nenjoyment of all rights guaranteed to them by Art. 17 of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
Let  us now revert to Mr. Desai’s argument that s. 3 of\t the
\nAct  is invalid inasmuch as it contravenes  the\t appellants’
\nfundamental   rights   guaranteed   by\tArt.   26   of\t the
\nConstitution.\tSection 3 throws open the Hindu\t temples  to
\nall classes and sections of Hindus and it puts an end to any
\neffort\tto prevent or obstruct or discourage  Harijans\tfrom
\nentering  a place of public worship or from  worshipping  or
\noffering prayers threat, or performing any religious service
\ntherein,  in the like manner and to the like extent  as\t any
\nother  Hindu  of whatsoever section or class may  so  enter,
\nworship, pray or perform.  The object of the section and its
\nmeaning are absolutely clear.  In the matter of entering the
\nHindu  temple  or  worshipping, praying\t or  performing\t any
\nreligious service therein, there shall be no  discrimination
\nbetween\t any classes or sections of Hindus, and others.\t  In
\nother  words, no Hindu temple shall obstruct a\tHarijan\t for
\nentering the temple or worshipping in the temple or  praying
\nin  it\tor performing any religious service therein  in\t the
\nsame manner and to the same extent as any other Hindu  would
\nbe permitted to do.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Desai contends that in the temples, in suit,  even\t the
\nSatsangi  Hindus  are not permitted to enter  the  innermost
\nsacred part of the temple where the idols are installed.  It
\nis  only the Poojaris who are authorised to enter  the\tsaid
\nsacred portion of the
\n258<\/span>
\ntemples\t and do the actual worship of the idols by  touching
\nthe  idols  for the purpose of giving a bath to\t the  idols,
\ndressing the idols, offering garlands to the idols and doing
\nall  other ceremonial rites prescribed by  the\tSwaminarayan
\ntradition  and\tconvention; and his grievance  is  that\t the
\nwords used in S. 3 are so wide that even this part of actual
\nworship of the idols which is reserved for the Poojaris\t and
\nspecially authorised class of worshippers, may be claimed by
\nrespondent No. 1 and his followers; and in so far as such  a
\nclaim  appears to be justified by s. 3 of the Act,  it\tcon-
\ntravenes  the provisions of Art. 26(b) of the  Constitution.
\nArt.  26(b) provides that subject to public order,  morality
\nand  health,  every religious denomination  or\tany  section
\nthereof\t shall have the right to manage its own\t affairs  in
\nmatters\t of  religion, and so, the contention  is  that\t the
\ntraditional  conventional  manner of performing\t the  actual
\nworship of the idols would be invaded if the broad words  of
\nS.  3  are construed to confer on  non-Satsangi\t Harijans  a
\nright  to enter the innermost sanctuary of the\ttemples\t and
\nseek  to  perform that part of worship which  even  Satsangi
\nHindus are not permitted to do.\n<\/p>\n
In  our\t opinion, this contention is misconceived.   In\t the
\nfirst place it is significant that no such plea was made  or
\ncould  have  been made in the plaint, because s.  3  of\t the
\nformer Act which was initially challenged by the  appellants
\nhad  expressly\tdefined ” worship” as including a  right  to
\nattend\ta  temple for the purpose of darshan of a  deity  or
\ndeities in or within the precincts thereof, and the cause of
\naction\tset out by the appellants in their plaint  was\t‘hat
\nthey  apprehended  that respondent No. 1 and  his  followers
\nwould  enter  the temple and seek to obtain darshan  of\t the
\ndeity\tinstalled  in  it.   Therefore,\t it  would  not\t  be
\nlegitimate  for the appellants to raise this new  contention
\nfor the first time when they find that the words used in  s.
\n3  of the Act are somewhat wider than the words used in\t the
\ncorresponding section of the former Act.\n<\/p>\n
Besides, on the merits, we do not think that by enacting  s.
\n3, the Bombay Legislature intended to invade the traditional
\nand  conventional manner in which the act of actual  worship
\nof  the\t -deity\t is  allowed to be  performed  only  by\t the
\nauthorised  Poojaris of the temple and by no  other  devotee
\nentering the temple for darshan.  In many Hindu temples, the
\nact  of\t actual\t worship  is  entrusted\t to  the  authorised
\nPoojaris  and  all  the devotees are allowed  to  enter\t the
\ntemple up to a limit beyond which entry is barred :to  them,
\nthe innermost portion of the temple being reserved only\t for
\nthe authorised Poojaris of the temple.\t  If that
\n 259<\/span>
\nis  so,\t then all that s. 3 purports to do is  to  give\t the
\nHarijans the same right to enter the temple for ‘darshan’ of
\nthe  deity as can be claimed by the other Hindus.  It  would
\nbe noticed that the right to enter the temple, to worship in
\nthe  temple,  to  pray in it or\t to  perform  any  religious
\nservice\t therein  which\t has  been conferred  by  s.  3,  is
\nspecifically  qualified\t by the clause that the\t said  right
\nwill be enjoyed in the like manner and to the like extent as
\nany other Hindu of whatsoever section or class may do.\t The
\nmain  object of the section is to establish complete  social
\nequality between all sections of the Hindus in the matter of
\nworship specified by s. 3; and so, the apprehension on which
\nMr.   Desai’s  argument\t is  based  must  be  held   to\t  be
\nmisconceived.  We are, therefore, satisfied that there is no
\nsubstance  in the contention that s. 3 of the Act  is  ultra
\nvires.\n<\/p>\n
That  takes us to the main controversy between the  parties.
\nAre   the  appellants  justified  in  contending  that\t the
\nSwaminarayan  sect is a religion distinct and separate\tfrom
\nthe Hindu religion, and consequently, the temples  belonging
\nto the said sect do not fall within the ambit of s. 3 of the
\nAct  ?\tIn  attempting\tto answer  this\t question,  we\tmust
\ninevitably  enquire  what are the  distinctive\tfeatures  of
\nHindu -religion?  The consideration of this question,  prima
\nfacie,\tappears\t to  be somewhat  inappropriate\t within\t the
\nlimits\tof judicial enquiry in a court of law.\tIt  is\ttrue
\nthat  the  appellants  seek  for  reliefs  in  the   present
\nlitigation  on the ground that their civil rights to  manage
\ntheir\ttemples\t according  to\tthe  religious\ttenets\t are
\ncontravened;  and  so, the Court is bound to deal  with\t the
\ncontroversy as best as it can.\tThe issue raised between the
\nparties is undoubtedly justiciable and has to be  considered
\nas such; but in doing so, we cannot ignore the fact that the
\nproblem posed by the issue, though secular in character,  is
\nvery  complex  to determine; its decision  would  depend  on
\nsocial,\t   sociological,    historical,\t   religious\t and
\nphilosophical considerations; and when it is remembered that
\nthe development and growth of Hindu religion spreads over  a
\nlarge  period  nearly  4,000 years, the\t complexity  of\t the
\nproblem would at once become patent.\n<\/p>\n
Who  are  Hindus and what are the broad\t features  of  Hindu
\nreligion,  that\t must be the first part of  our\t enquiry  in
\ndealing\t with the present controversy between  the  parties.
\nThe historical and etymological genesis of the word “Hindu,’
\nhas given rise to a controversy amongst indologists; but the
\nview  generally accepted by scholars appears to be that\t the
\nword  “Hindu”  is derived from the  river  Sindhu  otherwise
\nknown  as Indus which flows from the Punjab.  “That part  of
\nthe great Aryan race”, says Monier
\n260<\/span>
\nWilliams,  “which immigrated from Central Asia, through\t the
\nmountain  passes into India, settled first in the  districts
\nnear the river Sindhu (now called the Indus).  The  Persians
\npronounced  this word Hindu and named their  Aryan  brethren
\nHindus.\t  The Greeks, who probably gained their first  ideas
\nof  India from the Persians, dropped the hard aspirate,\t and
\ncalled the Hindus “Indoi”. (1).”\n<\/p>\n
The  Encyclopaedia  of Religion and Ethics,  Vol.   VI,\t has
\ndescribed  “Hinduism” as the title applied to that  form  of
\nreligion  which\t prevails  among the vast  majority  of\t the
\npresent\t population of the Indian Empire (p. 686).   As\t Dr.
\nRadhakrishnan  has observed; “The Hindu civilization  is  so
\ncalled,\t since its original founders or\t earliest  followers
\noccupied  the  territory drained by the Sindhu\t(the  Indus)
\nriver  system  corresponding  to  the  North  West  Frontier
\nProvince and the Punjab.  This is recorded in the Rig  Veda,
\nthe  oldest  of the Vedas, the Hindu scriptures\t which\tgive
\ntheir name to this period Indian history.  The people on the
\nIndian\tside of the Sindhu were called Hindu by the  Persian
\nand  the later western invaders”.(2) That is the genesis  of
\nthe word “Hindu”.\n<\/p>\n
When  we think of the Hindu religion, we find it  difficult,
\nif  not\t impossible,  to  define  Hindu\t religion  or\teven
\nadequately  describe  it.   Unlike other  religions  in\t the
\nworld, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it
\ndoes  not worship any one God; it does not subscribe to\t any
\none  dogma;  it\t does not believe  in  any  one\t philosophic
\nconcept;  it does not follow any one set of religious  rites
\nor performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy\t the
\nnarrow\ttraditional features of any religion or\t creed.\t  It
\nmay broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.
\nConfronted  by this difficulty, Dr.  Radhakrishnan  realised
\nthat  “to  many\t Hinduism seems to be  a  name\twithout\t any
\ncontent.  Is it a museum of beliefs, a medley of rites, or a
\nmere map, a geographical expression?”(3) Having posed  these
\nquestions  which  disturbed foreigners when  they  think  of
\nHinduism,  Dr. Radhakrishnan has explained how Hinduism\t has
\nsteadily absorbed the customs and ideas of peoples with whom
\nit has come into contact and has thus been able to  maintain
\nits supremacy and its youth.  The term ‘Hindu’, according to
\nDr.  Radhakrishnan, had originally a territorial and  not  a
\ncredal significance.  It implied residence in a well-defined
\ngeographical area.  Aboriginal tribes,
\n(1)  “Hinduism” by Monier Williams, p. 1.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  “The Hindu View of Life” by Dr. Radhakrishnan,  p.\t 12.
\n(3) Ibid p. 11.\n<\/p>\n
 261<\/span><\/p>\n
savage\tand half-civilized people, the\tcultured  Dravidians
\nand  the Vedic Aryans were all Hindus as they were the\tsons
\nof  the same mother.  The Hindu thinkers reckoned  with\t the
\nstriking  fact\tthat  the men and women\t dwelling  in  India
\nbelonged  to  different\t communities,  worshipped  different
\ngods, and practised different rites (Kurma Purana)(1).
\nMonier Williams has observed that “it must be borne in\tmind
\nthat Hinduism is far more than a mere form of theism resting
\non Brahmanism.\tIt presents for our investigation a  complex
\ncongeries  of  creeds  and doctrines which  in\tits  gradual
\naccumulation  may be compared to the gathering\ttogether  of
\nthe  mighty  volume of the Ganges, swollen  by\ta  continual
\ninflux\tof tributary rivers and rivulets,  spreading  itself
\nover   an  ever-increasing  area  of  country  and   finally
\nresolving itself into an intricate Delta of tortuous  steams
\nand   jungly  marshes……..  The  Hindu  religion   is   a
\nreflection of the composite character of the Hindus, who are
\nnot  one  people  but  many.  It is based  on  the  idea  of
\nuniversal  receptivity.\t It has ever aimed at  accommodating
\nitself\tto circumstances, and has carried on the process  of
\nadaptation  through more than three thousand years.  It\t has
\nfirst borne with and then, so to speak, swallowed, digested,
\nand assimilated something from all creeds.”(2)
\nWe have already indicated that the usual tests which can  be
\napplied in relation to any recognised religion or  religious
\ncreed in the world turn out to be inadequate in dealing with
\nthe  problem  of Hindu religion.  Normally,  any  recognised
\nreligion  or  religious creed subscribes to a  body  of\t set
\nphilosophic  concepts  and theological beliefs.\t  Does\tthis
\ntest  apply  to\t the  Hindu religion  ?\t In  answering\tthis
\nquestion,  we would base ourselves mainly on the  exposition
\nof  the problem by Dr. Radhakrishnan in his work  on  Indian
\nPhilosophy. (3) Unlike other countries, India can claim that
\nphilosophy  in\tancient India was not an  auxiliary  to\t any
\nother  science or art, but always held a prominent  position
\nof  independence.   The Mundaka Upanisad speaks\t of  Brahma-
\nvidya  or  the science of the eternal as the  basis  of\t all
\nsciences,  ‘sarva-vidyapratishtha’.  According to  Kautilya,
\n“Philosophy”  is the lamp of all the sciences, the means  of
\nperforming all the works, and the support of all the duties.
\n“In  all  the  fleeting\t centuries  of\thistory”,  says\t Dr.
\nRadhakrishnan, “in all the vicissitudes through which  India
\nhas  passed, a certain marked identity is visible.   It\t has
\nheld  fast to certain psychological traits which  constitute
\nits special
\n(1)  lbid p. 12.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  “Religious Thought & Life In India” by Monier Williams,
\np. 57.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  “Indian Philosophy” by Dr. Radhakrishrian, Vol. 1,\t pp.
\n22-23.\n<\/p>\n
262<\/span><\/p>\n
heritage,  and they will be the characteristic marks of\t the
\nIndian\tpeople\tso  long as they are privileged\t to  have  a
\nseparate   existence”.\t The  history  of   Indian   thought
\nemphatically  brings  out the fact that the  development  of
\nHindu religion has always been inspired by an endless  quest
\nof the mind for truth based on the consciousness that  truth
\nhas  many  facets.  Truth is one, but wise men\tdescribe  it
\ndifferently.(1)\t The Indian mind has,  consistently  through
\nthe  ages, been exercised over the problem of the nature  of
\ngodhead\t the  problem that faces the spirit at\tthe  end  of
\nlife, and, the interrelation between the individual and\t the
\nuniversal  soul.   “If we can abstract from the\t variety  of
\nopinion”,  says Dr. Radhakrishnan, “and observe the  general
\nspirit\tof  Indian  thought, we shall find  that  it  has  a
\ndisposition  to\t interpret  life and nature in\tthe  way  of
\nmonistic  idealism,  though  this tendency  is\tso  plastic,
\nliving\tand manifold that it takes many forms and  expresses
\nitself in even mutually hostile teachings”.(2)
\nThe  monistic idealism which can be said to be\tthe  general
\ndistinguishing\t feature  of  Hindu  Philosophy\t  has\tbeen
\nexpressed  in  four  different forms :\t(1)  Non-dualism  or
\nAdvitism;  (2)\tPure monism: (3) Modified  monism;  and\t (4)
\nImplicit  monism.   It is remarkable  that  these  different
\nforms  of monistic idealism purport to derive  support\tfrom
\nthe  same vedic and Upanishadic texts.\t Shankar,  Ramanuja,
\nVallabha and Madhva all based their philosophic concepts  on
\nwhat   they  regarded  to  be  the  synthesis  between\t the
\nUpanishads, the Brahmasutras and the Bhagavad Gita.   Though
\nphilosophic  concepts  and principles evolved  by  different
\nHindu thinkers and philosophers varied in many ways and even
\nappeared  to conflict with each other in  some\tparticulars,
\nthey  all had reverence for the past and accepted the  Vedas
\nas  the sole foundation of the Hindu philosophy.   Naturally
\nenough,\t it  was realised by Hindu religion  from  the\tvery
\nbeginning  of  its  career that\t truth\twas  many-sided\t and
\ndifferent  views contained different aspects of truth  which
\nno one could fully express.  This knowledge inevitably\tbred
\na  spirit  of tolerance and willingness\t to  understand\t and
\nappreciate  the opponents point of view.  That is  how\t“the
\nseveral\t views\tset forth in India in regard  to  the  vital
\nphilosophic  concepts are considered to be the\tbranches  of
\nthe  self-same\ttree.  The short cuts and blind\t alleys\t are
\nsomehow\t reconciled  with the main road of  advance  to\t the
\ntruth.”(3)  When we consider this broad sweep of  the  Hindu
\nphilosophic concepts, it would be realised that under  Hindu
\nphilosophy, there is no scope for ex-\n<\/p>\n
(2) lbid, p. 32.\t\t\t(3) lbid P. 48.\n<\/p>\n
 263<\/span><\/p>\n
communicating  any  notion  or principle  as  heretical\t and
\nrejecting it as such.\n<\/p>\n
Max Muller who was a great oriental scholar of his time\t was
\nimpressed by this comprehensive and all-pervasive aspect  of
\nthe  s`weep  of\t Hindu philosophy.   Referring\tto  the\t six
\nsystems known to Hindu philosophy, Max Muller observed: “The
\nlonger\tI have studied the various systems, the more have  I
\nbecome\timpressed  with\t the  truth of\tthe  view  taken  by
\nVijnanabhiksu and others that there is behind the variety of
\nthe six systems a common fund of what may be called national
\nor   popular   philosophy,   a\tlarge\tmanasa\t (lake)\t  of
\nphilosophical  thought and language far away in the  distant
\nNorth  and in the distant past, from which each thinker\t was
\nallowed to draw for his own purposes”.(1)
\nBeneath the diversity of philosophic thoughts, concepts\t and
\nideas expressed by Hindu philosophers who started  different
\nphilosophic schools, lie certain broad concepts which can be
\ntreated as basic.  The first amongst these basic concepts is
\nthe  acceptance\t of  the Veda as the  highest  authority  in
\nreligious and philosophic matters.  This concept necessarily
\nimplies\t that  all  the systems claim to  have\tdrawn  their
\nprinciples from a common. reservoir of thought enshrined  in
\nthe  Veda.  The Hindu teachers were thus obliged to use\t the
\nheritage they received from the past in order to make  their
\nviews readily understood.  The other basic concept which  is
\ncommon\tto the six systems of Hindu philosophy is that\t“all
\nof  them  accept the view of the great world  rhythm.\tVast
\nperiods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each
\nother\tin   endless  succession.   This   theory   is\t not
\ninconsistent  with,  belief  in progress; for it  is  not  a
\nquestion  of  the movement of the world\t reaching  its\tgoal
\ntimes  without\tnumber, and being again forced back  to\t its
\nstarting  point…… It means that the race of\t man  enters
\nupon and retravels its ascending path of realisation.\tThis
\ninterminable succession of world ages has no beginning(2) It
\nmay  also be said that all the systems of  Hindu  philosophy
\nbelieve\t in rebirth and pre-existence.\t“Our life is a\tstep
\non  a road, the direction and goal of which are lost in\t the
\ninfinite.   On\tthis  road,  death is never  an\t end  of  an
\nobstacle  but at most the beginning of new steps”.(8)  Thus,
\nit  is\tclear  that unlike  other  religions  and  religious
\ncreeds,\t Hindu religion is not tied to any definite  set  of
\nphilosophic concepts as such.\n<\/p>\n
Do  the\t Hindus\t worship at their temples the  same  set  or
\nnumber of gods ? That is another question which can be asked
\nin this
\n(1)  “Six  Systems  of Indian Philosophy” by Max  Muller  p.
\nxvii.\n<\/p>\n
(2) In\t    Philosophy” by Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vol.  IT.,  V.\n<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
(3)idib.\n<\/p>\n
L10 Sup.  C.I.\/6″\n<\/p>\n
2 64
\nconnection; and the answer to this question again has to  be
\nin the negative.  Indeed, there are certain sections of\t the
\nHindu  community  which\t do not believe in  the\t worship  of
\nidols; and as regards those sections of the Hindu  community
\nwhich  believe in the worship of idols, their  idols  differ
\nfrom  community to community and it cannot be said that\t one
\ndefinite  idol or a definite number of idols are  worshipped
\nby  all\t the Hindus in general.\t In the Hindu  Pantheon\t the
\nfirst  gods that were worshipped in Vedic times were  mainly
\nIndra,\tVaruna,\t Vayu and Agni.\t Later, Brahma,\t Vishnu\t and
\nMahesh came to be worshipped.  In course ,of time, Rama\t and
\nKrishna secured a place of pride in the Hindu Pantheon,\t and
\ngradually  as  different philosophic concepts held  sway  in
\ndifferent  sects  and  in different sections  of  the  Hindu
\n,community,  a\tlarge number of gods were  added,  with\t the
\nresult that today, the Hindu Pantheon presents the spectacle
\nof  a  very  large  number of gods  who\t are  worshipped  by
\ndifferent sections ,of the Hindus.\n<\/p>\n
The development of Hindu religion and philosophy shows\tthat
\nfrom  time to time saints and religious reformers  attempted
\nto  remove from the Hindu thought and practices elements  of
\ncorruption and superstition and that led to the formation of
\ndifferent  sects.  Buddha started Buddhism; Mahavir  founded
\nJainism;  Basava  became the founder of\t Lingayat  religion,
\nDnyaneshwar  and Tuk-aram initiated the Varakari cult;\tGuru
\nNank  inspired\tSikhism; Dayananda founded Arya\t Samaj,\t and
\nChaitanya  began  Bhakti  cult;\t and  as  a  result  of\t the
\nteachings  of Ramakrishna and Viveka-nanda,  Hindu  religion
\nflowered  into its most attractive, progressive and  dynamic
\nform.\tIf  we\tstudy  the teachings  of  these\t saints\t and
\nreligious reformers, we would notice an amount of divergence
\nin  their respective views; but underneath that\t divergence,
\nthere  is a kind of subtle indescribable unity\twhich  keeps
\nthem  within  the sweep of the broad and  progressive  Hindu
\nreligion.\n<\/p>\n
There are some remarkable features of the teachings of these
\nsaints\tand  religious\treformers.   All  of  them  revolted
\nagainst\t the  dominance\t of rituals and\t the  power  of\t the
\npriestly class with which it came to be associated; and\t all
\nof them proclaimed their teachings not in Sanskrit which was
\nthe  monopoly  of the priestly class, but in  the  languages
\nspoken\tby the ordinary mass of people in  their  respective
\nregions.\n<\/p>\n
Whilst\twe  are dealing with this  broad  and  comprehensive
\n,aspect of Hindu religion, it may be permissible to  enquire
\nwhat,  :according to this religion, is the ultimate goal  of
\nhumanity?  It
\n 265<\/span>
\nis  the\t release  and freedom from the\tunceasing  cycle  of
\nbirths\tand  rebirths;\tMoksha\tor  Nirvana,  which  is\t the
\nultimate  aim of Hindu religion and  philosophy,  represents
\nthe  state  of absolute absorption and assimilation  of\t the
\nindividual  soul with the infinite.  What are the  means  to
\nattain\tthis  end  ? On this vital  issue,  there  is  great
\ndivergence  of views; some emphasise the importance of\tGyan
\nor  knowledge, while others extol the virtues of  Bhakti  or
\ndevotion;   and\t yet  others  insist  upon   the   paramount
\nimportance of the performance of duties with a heart full of
\ndevotion  and  mind  inspired by true  knowledge.   In\tthis
\nsphere again, there is diversity of opinion, though all\t are
\nagreed\tabout  the ultimate goal.  Therefore,  it  would  be
\ninappropriate to apply the traditional tests in\t determining
\nthe extent of the jurisdiction of Hindu religion.  It can be
\nsafely\tdescribed  as a way of life based on  certain  basic
\nconcepts to which we have already referred.
\nTilak  faced this complex and difficult problem of  defining
\nor  at\tleast describing adequately Hindu  religion  and  he
\nevolved\t a working formula which may be regarded  as  fairly
\nadequate and satisfactory.  Said Tilak : “Acceptance of\t the
\nVedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means
\nor  ways  to salvation are diverse and\trealisation  of\t the
\ntruth  that  the number of gods to be worshipped  is  large,
\nthat   indeed  is  the\tdistinguishing\tfeature\t  of   Hindu
\nreligion”(1).\tThis  definition brings out  succinctly\t the
\nbroad  distinctive  features  of  Hindu\t religion.   It\t  is
\nsomewhat remarkable that this broad sweep of Hindu  religion
\nhas  been eloquently described by Toynbee.  Says  Toynbee  :
\n“When we pass from the plane of social practice to the plane
\nof  intellectual  outlook, Hinduism too comes  out  well  by
\ncomparison  with the religions and ideologies of the  South-
\nWest  Asian  group.  In contrast to these Hinduism  has\t the
\nsame  outlook as the pre-Christian and pre-Muslim  religions
\nand philosophies of the Western half of the old world.\tLike
\nthem, Hinduism takes it for granted that there is more\tthan
\none valid approach to truth and to salvation and that  these
\ndifferent  approaches  are  not only  compatible  with\teach
\nother, but are complementary”(2).\n<\/p>\n
The  Constitution-makers were fully conscious of this  broad
\nand comprehensive character of Hindu religion; and so, while
\nguaranteeing  the fundamental right to freedom of  religion,
\nExplanation  II\t to Art. 25 has made it clear that  in\tsub-
\nclause\t(b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall  be
\nconstrued as
\n(B.G.Tilak’s”Gitarahasya”)
\n(2)  “The Present-Day Experiment in Western Civilisation” by
\nToynbee, pp. 48-49.\n<\/p>\n
266<\/span><\/p>\n
including a reference to persons professing the Sikh,  Jaina
\nor  Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu  religious
\ninstitutions shall be construed accordingly.
\nConsistently  with this constitutional provision, the  Hindu
\nMarriage  Act,\t1955; the Hindu Succession  Act,  1956;\t the
\nHindu  Minority\t and Guardianship Act, 1956; and  the  Hindu
\nAdoptions  and\tMaintenance  Act,  1956\t have  extended\t the
\napplication of these Acts to all persons who can be regarded
\nas Hindus in this broad and comprehensive sense.  Section  2
\nof the, Hindu Marriage Act, for instance, provides that this
\nAct applies-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)to any person who is a Hindu by religion in
\n\t      any of its forms or developments, including  a
\n\t      Virashaiva,  a Lingayat or a follower  of\t the
\n\t      Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina,  or
\n\t      Sikh by religion, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)to  any  other person domiciled  in  the
\n\t      territories  to which this Act extends who  is
\n\t      not  a  Muslim,  Christian, Parsi\t or  Jew  by
\n\t      religion,\t unless it is proved that  any\tsuch
\n\t      person  would  not have been governed  by\t the
\n\t      Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of
\n\t      that  law\t in respect of any  of\tthe  matters
\n\t      dealt  with  herein if this Act had  not\tbeen
\n\t      passed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The same provision is made in the other three Acts to  which
\nwe have just referred.\n<\/p>\n
It is in the light of this position that we must now proceed
\nto   consider  whether\tthe  philosophy\t and   theology\t  of
\nSwaminarayan   show   that  the\t  school   of\tSwaminarayan
\nconstitutes a distinct and separate -religion which is not a
\npart  of Hindu religion.  Do the followers of the said\tsect
\nfall outside the Hindu brotherhood, that is the crux of\t the
\nproblem\t which\twe have to face in the present\tappeal.\t  In
\ndeciding this question, it is necessary to consider  broadly
\nthe  philosophic and theological tenets of Swaminarayan\t and
\nthe  characteristics  which marked the\tfollowers  of  Swami
\nnarayan who are otherwise known as Satsangis.
\nIn dealing with this aspect of the problem, it would be safe
\nto  rely upon the data furnished by Monier Williams  in\t his
\nbook  “Religious thought and life in India” (1883).   It  is
\nhardly necessary to emphasise that Monier Williams played  a
\nvery important role in explaining the religious thought\t and
\nlife  in India to the English-speaking world outside  India.
\n“Having been a
\n2 67
\nstudent\t of  Indian sacred literature for  more\t than  forty
\nyears,” observed Monier Williams “and having twice travelled
\nover  every  part of India, from Bombay\t to  Calcutta,\tfrom
\nCashmere  to  Ceylon,  I may possibly hope  to\tmake  a\t dry
\nsubject\t fairly attractive without any serious sacrifice  of
\nscientific  accuracy, while at the same time it will  be  my
\nearnest\t endeavour  to hold the scales\timpartially  between
\nantagonistic religious systems and as far as possible to  do
\njustice\t to the amount of truth that each may  contain”\t (P.\n<\/p>\n
1).   It is remarkable tribute to the scholarship of  Monier
\nWilliams  and  of his devotion to the mission which  he\t had
\nundertaken  that  though his book was written  as  early  as
\n1883,  it  is  still  regarded\tas  a  valuable\t source\t  of
\ninformation  in\t dealing with problems\tconnected  with\t the
\nreligious thought and life in India.\n<\/p>\n
Let us then refer briefly to the life story of\tSwaminarayan
\nfor  that  would help us to understand\tand  appreciate\t the
\nsignificance  of  his philosophic and  religious  teachings.
\nThe  original  name  of Swaminarayan  was  Sahajananda.\t  By
\nbirth, he was a high-caste Brahaman.  He was born at Chapai,
\na village 120 miles to the North-west of Lucknow, about\t the
\nyear  1780.  He was born to Vaishnava parents, but early  in
\nhis career he was “disgusted with the manner of life of\t the
\nso-called  followers of Vallabhacharya, whose  precepts\t and
\npractice  were utterly at variance, and especially with\t the
\nlicentious  habits  of the Bombay Maharajas.”  He  was\tthen
\ndetermined  to denounce these irregularities and expose\t the
\nvices that had crept into the lives of the Bombay Maharajas.
\nSwaminarayan was a celibate and he “lived an ascetical,\t yet
\nwithal\ta  large-hearted and philanthropic,  life”  and\t the
\nshowed a great aptitude for learning.  In 1800, he left\t his
\nhome  and placed himself under the protection of  the  chief
\nGuru,  named  Ramananda\t Swami\tat  a  village\twithin\t the
\njurisdiction  of the Junagarh Nawab.  When  Ramananda  Swami
\nremoved\t to  Ahmedabad in 1804,\t Sahajananda  followed\thim.
\nSoon  Sahajananda  collected  around him a  little  band  of
\ndisciples,  which  rapidly  grew “into an  army\t of  devoted
\nadherents”.   That  naturally  provoked\t the  wrath  of\t the
\northodox  Brahmans  and magnates of Ahmedabad who  began  to
\npersecute him.\tThat drove Sahajananda to Jetalpur, 12 miles
\nsouth  of  Ahmedabad,  which became the, focus\tof  a  great
\nreligious gathering.  Thousands of people were attracted  by
\nthis  young  religious\tteacher who now\t took  the  name  of
\nSwaminarayan.\tSwaminarayan  then retired to  the  secluded
\nvillage\t of  Wartal, where he erected a temple\tto  Narayana
\n(otherwise  Krishna,  or  Vishnu,  as  the  Supreme   Being)
\nassociated  with  the goddess Lakshmi.\t From  this  Central
\nscene  of his religious activities, Swaminarayan  mounted  a
\nstrong crusade
\n2 68
\nagainst\t  the  licentious  habits  of  the  gurus   of\t the
\nVallabhacharya sect.  His watchword was “devotion to Krishna
\nwith  observance  of,  duty and purity of  life”.   The\t two
\nprincipal  temples of the Swaminarayan sect are\t at  Wartal,
\nwhich is about four miles to the west of the Baroda  railway
\nstation, and at Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n
In about 1826-27, a formal constitution of the sect  appears
\nto  have  been prepared; it is known as the  ‘Iekh’  or\t the
\ndocument  for  the apportionment of  territory\t(Deshvibhaga
\nLekh).\t By this document, Swaminarayan divided\t India\tinto
\ntwo  parts  by\ta national line\t running  from\tCalcutta  to
\nNavangar and established dioceses, the northern one with the
\ntemple\tof  Nar Narayan at Ahmedabad, and the  southern\t one
\nwhich  included the temple of Lakshminarayan at Wartal.\t  To
\npreside over these two dioceses Swaminarayan adopted his two
\nnephews\t   Ayodhyaprasad    and\t   Raghuvir    respectively.
\nSubordinate  to these Gadis and the principal  temples,\t two
\nscore  large  temples and over a  thousand  smaller  temples
\nscattered  all\tover  the country came to be  built  in\t due
\ncourse.\n<\/p>\n
The Constitution of the Swaminarayan sect and its tenets and
\npractices are collected in four different scriptures of\t the
\nfaith  viz., (1) the “Lekh” to which we have just  referred;
\n(2)  the  “Shikahapatri”  which was  originally\t written  by
\nSwaminarayan  himself  in  about  1826\tA.D.;  the  original
\nmanuscript  does  not  appear  to  be  available,  but\t the
\nShikshapatri was subsequently rendered into Sanskrit  verses
\nby  Shatanandswami  under  the\tdirections  of\tSwaminarayan
\nhimself.   This\t Sanskrit  translation\tis  treated  by\t the
\nfollowers of Swaminarayan as authentic.\t This book was later
\ntranslated   into   Gujarati  by  another   disciple   named
\nNityanand.   This Shikshapatri is held in high reverence  by
\nthe followers of the faith as a prayer book and it  contains
\nsummary of Swaminarayan’s instructions and principles  which
\nhave to be followed by his disciples in their lives; (3) the
\n“Satsangijiwan” which consists of five parts and is  written
\nin   Sanskrit\tby   Shathnand\tduring\t the   lifetime\t  of
\nSwaminarayan.\tThis work gives an account of the  life\t and
\nteachings   of\tSwaminarayan.\tIt  appears  to\t have\tbeen
\ncompleted  in about 1829.  Shikshapatri has been bodily\t in-
\ncorporated  in this work; (4) the “Vachanamrit” which  is  a
\ncollection  of\tSwaminarayan’s sermons\tin  Gujarati.\tThis
\nappears\t to  have  been\t prepared  between  1828  and  1830.
\nSwaminarayan died in 1830.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tnecessary  at this stage  to  indicate\tbroadly\t the
\nprinciples  which Swaminarayan preached and which he  wanted
\nhis followers to adopt in life.\t These principles have\tbeen
\nsuscinctly sum-\n<\/p>\n
269<\/span><\/p>\n
marised\t by  Monier Williams.  It is interesting  to  recall
\nthat   before\tMonier\tWilliams  wrote\t  his\tChapter\t  on
\nSwaminarayan  sect he visited the Wartal temple\t in  company
\nwith  the Collector of Kaira on the day of the\tPurnima,  or
\nfull  moon of the month of Karttik which is regarded as\t the
\nmost popular festival of the whole year by the\tSwaminarayan
\nsect.\tOn the occasion of this visit, Monier  Williams\t had
\nlong  discussions with the followers of Swaminarayan and  he
\ndid his best to ascertain the way Swaminarayan’s  principles
\nwere preached and taught and the way they were, practised by
\nthe  followers of the sect.  We will now  briefly  reproduce
\nsome of the principles enunciated by Swaminarayan.
\n“The  killing of any animal for the purpose of sacrifice  to
\nthe gods is forbidden by me.  Abstaining from injury is\t the
\nhighest of all duties.\tNo flesh meat must ever be eaten, no
\nspirituous or vinous liquor must ever be drunk, not even  as
\nmedicine.   My male followers should make the vertical\tmark
\n(emblematical  of the footprint of Vishnu or  Krishna)\twith
\nthe  round spot inside it (symbolical of Lakshmi)  on  their
\nforeheads.   Their wives should only make the circular\tmark
\nwith  red powder or saffron.  Those who are  initiated\tinto
\nthe  proper worship of Krishna should always wear  on  their
\nnecks two rosaries made of `Tulsi wood, one for Krishna\t and
\nthe other for Radha.  After engaging in mental worship,\t let
\nthem  reverently bow down before the pictures of  Radha\t and
\nKrishna,  and repeat the eight-syllabled prayer\t to  Krishna
\n(Sri  Krishnan\tsaranam mama, ‘Great Krishna  is  my  soul’s
\nrefuge’)  as  many times as possible.  Then let\t them  apply
\nthemselves  to secular affairs.\t Duty (Dharma) is that\tgood
\npractice  which is enjoined both by the Veda (Sruti) and  by
\nthe law (Smriti) founded on the Veda.  Devotion (Bhakti)  is
\nintense love for Krishna accompanied with a due sense of his
\nglory.\t Every day all my followers should go to the  Temple
\nof God, and there repeat the names of Krishna.\tThe story of
\nhis life should be listened to with the great reverence, and
\nhymns in his praise should be sung on festive days.  Vishnu,
\nSiva, Ganapati (or Ganesa), Parvati, and the Sun; these five
\ndeities should be honoured with worship.  Narayana and\tSiva
\nshould\tbe equally regarded as part of one and same  Supreme
\nSpirit,\t since\tboth have been declared in the Vedas  to  be
\nforms  of  Brahma.  On no account let it  be  supposed\tthat
\ndifference  in forms (or names) makes any difference in\t the
\nidentity  of the deity.\t That Being, known by various  names\n<\/p>\n
-such as the glorious Krishna, Param Brahma, Bhagavan, Puru-
\nshottama-the cause of all manifestations, is to be adored by
\nus  as\tour one chosen deity.\tThe  philosophical  doctrine
\napproved by me is the Visishtadvaita (of Ramanuja), and\t the
\ndesired heavenly
\n270<\/span>
\nabode is Goloka. there to worship Krishna and be united with
\nhim as the Supreme Soul is to be considered salvation.\t The
\ntwice  born  should  perform  at  the  proper  seasons,\t and
\naccording  to  their  means, he\t twelve\t purification  rites
\n(sankara), the (Six) daily duties, and the Sradha  offerings
\nto  the spirits of departed ancestors.\tA pilgrimage to\t the
\nTirthas, or holy places, of which Dwarika (Krishna’s city in
\nGujarat)  is  the chief, should be  performed  according  to
\nrule.\tAlmsgiving  and kind acts towards the  poor  ,Should
\nalways be performed by all.  A tithe of one’s income  should
\nbe  assigned  to Krishna; the poor should give\ta  twentieth
\npart.  Those males and females of my followers who will\t act
\naccording  to  these directions shall certainly\t obtain\t the
\nfour  great  objects of all human  desires-religious  merit,
\nwealth, pleasure, and beatitude”(1).\n<\/p>\n
The  Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency has  summarised\t the
\nteachings embodied in the Shikshapatri in this way :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  book of precepts strictly prohibits\t the
\n\t      destruction   of\tanimal\t life;\t promiscuous
\n\t      intercourse with the other sex; use of  animal
\n\t      food  and intoxicant liquors and drugs on\t any
\n\t      occasion,\t suicide, theft and  robbery;  false
\n\t      accusation  against a  fello-wman,  blasphemy;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      partaking of food with low caste people; caste
\n\t      pollution;  company of atheists  and  heretics
\n\t      and other practices which might counteract the
\n\t      effect of the founder’s teachings”.(2)
\nIt  is interesting to notice how a person is initiated\tinto
\nthe  sect of Satsangis.\t The ceremony of initiation is\tthus
\ndescribed in the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  ceremony of initiation begins  with\t the
\n\t      novice  offering a palmful of water  which  he
\n\t      throws  on  the  ground at  the  feet  of\t the
\n\t      Acharya\tsaying\t:  I  give  over  to   Swami
\n\t      Sahajanand my mind, body, wealth, and sins  of
\n\t      (all)  births, ‘Man’, tan, dhan,\tand  janmana
\n\t      pap.  He is then given the sacred formula ‘Sri
\n\t      Krishnastwam gatirmama, Shri Krishna thou\t art
\n\t      my refuge.  The novice then pays at least half
\n\t      a rupee to the Acharya.  Sometimes the Acharya
\n\t      delegates his authority to admit followers  as
\n\t      candidates  for regular  discipleship,  giving
\n\t      them  the\t Panch Vartaman,  formula  forbiding
\n\t      lying,   theft,  adultery,  intoxication\t and
\n\t      animal food.  But a
\n(1)  “Religious\t thought  and  life  in\t India”‘  By  Monier
\nWilliams pp. 155-58.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(2)  Gazetteer\tof the Bombay Presidency, Vol.\tIX, Part  1,
\nGujarat Population, 1901, p. 537.\n<\/p>\n
2 7 1
\n.lm15
\nperfect disciple can be made only after receiving the  final
\nformula\t from one of the two Acharyas.\t The  distinguishing
\nmark,  which  the disciple is then allowed to  make  on\t his
\nforehead, is a vertical streak of Gopichandan clay or sandal
\nwith  a round redpowder mark in the middle and a necklet  of
\nsweet basil beads”.(1)
\nNow that we have seen the main events in the life and career
\nof Swaminarayan and have examined the broad features of\t his
\nteachings,  it becomes very easy to, decide the question  as
\nto  whether the Swammarayan sect constitutes a distinct\t and
\nseparate religion and cannot be regarded as a part of  Hindu
\nreligion.  In our opinion, the plea raised by the appellants
\nthat  the Satsangis who follow the Swaminarayan sect form  a
\nseparate  and  distinct community different from  the  Hindu
\ncommunity  and\ttheir religion is a  distinct  and  separate
\nreligion   different  from  Hindu  religion,   is   entirely
\nmisconceived.\tPhilosophically, Swaminarayan is a  follower
\nof Ramanuja, and the essence of his teachings is that  every
\nindividual  should  follow the main Vedic injunctions  of  a
\ngood, pious and religious life and should attempt to  attain
\nsalvation  by  the path of devotion to\tLord  Krishna.\t The
\nessence\t of  the  initiation  lies  in\tgiving\tthe   person
\ninitiated the secret ‘Mantra’ which is : “Lord Krishna, thou
\nart  my refuge : Lord Krishna, I dedicate myself  to  thee’.
\nAcceptance  of the Vedas with reverence recognition  of\t the
\nfact  that the path of Bhakti or devotion leads\t to  Moksha,
\nand insistence on devotion to Lord Krishna unambiguously and
\nunequivocally  proclaim that Swaminarayan was a Hindu  saint
\nwho was determined to remove the corrupt practices which had
\ncrept  into  the  lives of the preachers  and  followers  of
\nVallabhacharya, and who wanted to restore the Hindu religion
\nto its original glory and purity.  Considering the work done
\nby Swaminarayan, history will not hesitate to accord him the
\nplace of honour in the galaxy of Hindu saints and  religious
\nreformers  who by their teachings, have contributed to\tmake
\nHindu religion ever alive, youthful and vigorous.
\nIt is, however, urged that there are certain features of the
\nSatsangi  followers of Swaminarayan which indicate that\t the
\nsect is a different community by itself and its religion  is
\nnot  a part of Hindu religion.\tIt is argued that no  person
\nbecomes\t a  Satsangi by birth and it is only  by  initiation
\nthat  the  status  of Satsangi is  conferred  on  a  person.
\nPersons\t of  other  religions  and  Harijans  can  join\t the
\nSatsangi sect by initiation.  Swaminarayan himself is
\n(1)  Gazetteer\tof the Bombay Presidency, Vol.\tIX  Part  1,
\nGujarat Population, pp. 538-39.\n<\/p>\n
2 72\t\t.\n<\/p>\n
treated as a God and in the main temple, worship is  offered
\nto  Swaminarayan pre-eminently; and that, it is\t argued,  is
\nnot consistent with the accepted notions of Hindu  religion.
\nWomen  can take Diksha and become followers of\tSwaminarayan
\nthough Diksha to women is given by the wife of the  Acharya.
\nFive vows have to be taken by the followers of the  Satsang,
\nsuch as abstinence from drinking, from non-vegetarian  diet,
\nfrom illegal sexual relationship, from theft and from inter-
\npollution.   Separate arrangements are made for Darshan\t for
\nwomen, special scriptures are honoured and special  teachers
\nare appointed to worship in the temples.  Mr. Desai contends
\nthat having regard to all these distinctive features of\t the
\nSwaminarayan  sect, it would be difficult to hold that\tthey
\nare  members  of the Hindu community and their\ttemples\t are
\nplaces\tof public worship within the meaning of s. 2 of\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
We are not impressed by this argument.\tEven a cursory study
\nof the growth and development of Hindu religion through\t the
\nages  shows  that whenever a saint or a\t religious  reformer
\nattempted the task of reforming Hindu religion and  fighting
\nirrational  or corrupt practices which had crept into it,  a
\nsect  was  born which was governed by its  own\ttenets,\t but
\nwhich  basically  subscribed to the fundamental\t notions  of
\nHindu  religion\t and Hindu philosophy.\tIt  has\t never\tbeen
\nsuggested that these sects are outside the Hindu brotherhood
\nand  the  temples which they honour are not  Hindu  temples,
\nsuch as are contemplated by s. 3 of the Act.  The fact\tthat
\nSwaminarayan  himself is worshipped in these temples is\t not
\ninconsistent with the belief which the teachings of Bhagvad-
\nGita   have  traditionally  created  in\t all  Hindu   minds.
\nAccording  to the Bhagvad-Gita, whenever religion is on\t the
\ndecline and irreligion is in the ascendance, God is born  to
\nrestore the balance of religion and guide the destiny of the
\nhuman  race towards salvation.(1) The birth of\tevery  saint
\nand  religious reformer is taken as an illustration  of\t the
\nprinciple thus enunciated by Bhagvad-Gita; and so, in course
\nof  time, these saints themselves are honoured, because\t the
\npresence  of divinity in their lives inevitably places\tthem
\non the high pedestal of divinity itself.  Therefore, we\t are
\nsatisfied  that\t none  of the reasons  on  which  Mr.  Desai
\nrelies, justifies his contention that the view taken by\t the
\nHigh Court is not right.\n<\/p>\n
It  is true that the Swaminarayan sect gives Diksha  to\t the
\nfollowers  of  other  religions\t and as\t a  result  of\tsuch
\ninitiation, they
\nGita 4 .7.\n<\/p>\n
 273<\/span><\/p>\n
become\tSatsangis  without  losing their  character  as\t the
\nfollowers  of  their own individual religions.\t This  fact,
\nhowever,  merely shows that the Satsang philosophy  preached
\nby  Swaminarayan  allows  followers of\tother  religions  to
\nreceive\t the  blessings of his teachings  without  insisting
\nupon  their  forsaking their own religions.  The  fact\tthat
\noutsiders  are\twilling to accept Diksha  or  initiation  is
\ntaken as an indication of their sincere desire to absorb and
\npractice  the philosophy of Swaminarayan and that  alone  is
\nheld  to  be  enough  to  confer  on  them  the\t benefit  of
\nSwaminarayan’s\tteachings.  The fact that the sect does\t not
\ninsist\tupon  the actual process of  proselytising  on\tsuch
\noccasions  has really no relevance in deciding the  question
\nas to whether the sect itself is a Hindu sect or not.  In  a
\nsense, this attitude of the Satsang sect is consistent\twith
\nthe  basic Hindu religious and philosophic theory that\tmany
\nroads  lead  to God.  Didn’t the  Bhagavad-Gita\t say:  “even
\nthose who profess other religions and worship their gods  in
\nthe manner prescribed by their religion, ultimately  worship
\nme  and\t reach me.”(1) Therefore, we have no  hesitation  in
\nholding\t that  the  High Court was right in  coming  to\t the
\nconclusion   that  the\tSwaminarayan  sect  to\t which\t the
\nappellants  belong is not a religion distinct  and  separate
\nfrom Hindu religion, and consequently, the temples belonging
\nto  the\t said sect do fall within the ambit of s. 2  of\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
The  present  suit began its career in 1948 and it  was\t the
\nresult\tof the appellants’ apprehension that the  proclaimed
\nand  publicised\t entry of the  non-Satsangi  Harijans  would
\nconstitute  a violent trespass on the religious\t tenets\t and
\nbeliefs\t of the Swaminarayan sect.  The appellants  must  no
\ndoubt,\thave realised that if non-Satsangi Hindus  including
\nHarijans enter the temple quietly without making any  public
\nannouncement  in  advance,  it would be\t difficult,  if\t not
\nimpossible,  to bar their entry; but since respondent No.  1
\npublicly  proclaimed that he and his followers would  assert
\ntheir right of entering the temples, the appellants  thought
\noccasion had arisen to bolt the doors of the temples against
\nthem;  and  so,\t they  came to\tthe  Court  in\tthe  present
\nproceedings  to ask for the Court’s command to\tprevent\t the
\nentry of respondent No. 1 and his followers.
\nIt  may\t be  conceded that the genesis of the  suit  is\t the
\ngenuine\t apprehension entertained by the appellants; but  as
\noften  happens\tin these matters, the said  apprehension  is
\nfounded\t   on\tsuperstition,\tignorance    and    complete
\nmisunderstanding of the true teachings
\n\t\t\t Gita 9.23.\n<\/p>\n
27 4
\nof Hindu religion and of the real significance of the tenets
\nand philosophy taught by Swaminarayan himself.
\nWhile this litigation was slowly moving from Court to Court,
\nmighty events of a revolutionary character took place on the
\nnational  scene.   The Constitution came into force  on\t the
\n26th  January,\t1950 and since then, the  whole\t social\t and
\nreligious  outlook  of the Hindu community has\tundergone  a
\nfundamental  change  as a result of the\t message  of  social
\nequality and justice proclaimed by the Indian  Constitution.
\nWe have seen how the solemn promise enshrined in Art. 17 has
\nbeen  gradually, -but irresistibly, enforced by the  process
\nof  law\t assisted by enlightened public\t conscience.   As  a
\nconsequence, the controversy raised before us in the present
\nappeal has today become a matter of mere academic  interest.
\nWe  feel confident that the view which we are taking on\t the
\nmerits\tof  the dispute between the parties in\tthe  present
\nappeal not only accords with the true legal position in\t the
\nmatter,\t but  it will receive the spontaneous  approval\t and
\nresponse  even from the traditionally conservative  elements
\nof  the Satsang community .Whom the appellants represent  in
\nthe  present  litigation.  In conclusion, we would  like  to
\nemphasise  that\t the right to enter temples which  has\tbeen
\nvouchsafed to the Harijans by the impugned Act in  substance
\nsymbolises  the\t right\tof  Harijans  to  enjoy\t all  social
\namenities and rights, for, let it always be remembered\tthat
\nsocial justice is the main foundation of the democratic\t way
\nof  life  ,,enshrined  in  the\tprovisions  of\tthe   Indian
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
The result is, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
275<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sastri Yagnapurushadji And … vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And … on 14 January, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1119, 1966 SCR (3) 242 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Ramaswami, V., Satyanarayanaraju, P. PETITIONER: SASTRI YAGNAPURUSHADJI AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: MULDAS BRUDARDAS VAISHYA AND ANOTHER DATE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120352","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSastri Yagnapurushadji And ... vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And ... on 14 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sastri Yagnapurushadji And ... vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And ... on 14 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1966-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-25T06:13:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"72 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sastri Yagnapurushadji And … vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And … on 14 January, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-25T06:13:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966\"},\"wordCount\":13039,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966\",\"name\":\"Sastri Yagnapurushadji And ... vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And ... on 14 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-25T06:13:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sastri Yagnapurushadji And … vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And … on 14 January, 1966\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sastri Yagnapurushadji And ... vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And ... on 14 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sastri Yagnapurushadji And ... vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And ... on 14 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-25T06:13:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"72 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sastri Yagnapurushadji And … vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And … on 14 January, 1966","datePublished":"1966-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-25T06:13:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966"},"wordCount":13039,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966","name":"Sastri Yagnapurushadji And ... vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And ... on 14 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-25T06:13:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-vs-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-on-14-january-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sastri Yagnapurushadji And … vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And … on 14 January, 1966"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120352","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120352"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120352\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}