http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 26  

PETITIONER: SASTRI YAGNAPURUSHADJI AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MULDAS BRUDARDAS VAISHYA AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/01/1966

BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) WANCHOO, K.N. HIDAYATULLAH, M. RAMASWAMI, V. SATYANARAYANARAJU, P.

CITATION:  1966 AIR 1119            1966 SCR  (3) 242  CITATOR INFO :  R          1983 SC   1  (19,129)  R          1984 SC  51  (8)  R          1988 SC1531  (64)

ACT: Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry  Authorisations Act (31 of 1956), s. 3-Validity. Hindu-Who is. Practice-Vakalanama in favour of an Advocate-Presentation of appeal by another advocate working in his chambers-If  valid presentation.

HEADNOTE: The  appellants, who are the followers of  the  Swaminarayan sect  and known at Satsangis, filed a  representative  suit: (i)  for a declaration that the relevant provisions  of  the Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947, as amended by Act  77 of  1948,  did  not apply to  their  temples,  because,  the religion of the Swaminarayan sect was distinct and different from Hindu religion and because, the relevant provisions  of the  Act,  were  ultra vires, and  (ii)  for  an  injunction restraining  the  1st  respondent  and  other  non  Satsangi Harijans  from entering the Swaminarayan temple.  The  Trial Court decreed the suit.  Pending the 1st respondent’s appeal in the High Court, the Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry  Authorisation) Act, 1956, was passed, and since  the 1947 Act gave place to the 1956 Act, it became necessary  to consider  whether  the 1956 Act was intra vires.   The  High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that the  followers  of  the Swaminarayan  sect  professed  Hindu religion  and  that  the Act of  1956  was  constitutionally valid. In appeal to this Court it was contended that : (i) the High Court  erred  in  treating the 1st  respondent’s  appeal  as competent  when  the  vakalatnama filed on  his  behalf  was invalid  (ii)  s. 3 of the 1956 Act was ultra  vires  as  it contravened  Art. 26(b) of the Constitution; and  (iii)  the religion of the Swaminarayan sect was distinct and  separate from Hindu religion and that therefore the temples belonging

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 26  

to that sect did not fall within the ambit of the 1956 Act. HELD:     (i)  The  appeal to the High  Court  was  properly presented. Technically  the  memorandum  of  appeal  presented  by  the Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the 1st respondent suffered  from  an infirmity, because,  the  1st  respondent signed the vakalatnama in favour of the Government  Pleader. But,  since  the Registry had not returned  the  appeal  for correcting  the  irregularity,  and  since  r.  95  of   the Appellate  Side  Rules  of  the  High  Court  authorises  an advocate   to  appear  even  without  initially   filing   a vakalatnama,  the  High  Court was  right  in  allowing  the Government Pleader to sign the memorandum of appeal and  the vakalatnarna, in order to remove the irregularity. [251 E-G; 252 A-C] (ii) There  is  no  substance in the contention  that  s.  3 contravenes Art. 26(b) of the Constitution and is  therefore ultra vires.                             243 The right to enter temples which has been vouchsafed to  the Harijans by the impugned Act substance symbolises the  right of Harijans to enjoys all social amenities  and rights, for, social  justice is the main foundation of   the   democratic way  of  life  enshrined in the  provisions  of  the  Indian Constitution.   After the Constitution came into force,  the whole  social and religious outlook of the  Hindu  community has  undergone  a  fundamental change as  a  result  of  the message  of  social equality and justice proclaimed  by  the Constitution; and the solemn promise in Art. 17,  abolishing untouchability has been gradually, but irresistibly enforced by  the  process  of  law  assisted  by  enlightened  public conscience.  All that s. 3 of the 1956 Act purports to do is to give the Harijans the same right to enter the temple  for darshan of the deity as can be claimed by the other  Hindus. The  act  of actual worship of the diety is  allowed  to  be performed only by the authorised poojaris of the temple  and by  no  other  devotee  entering  the  temple  for  darshan. Therefore, it was nont intended to invade the tradition  and conventional manner of performing the actual worship of  the idol. (iii)     The  High  Court  was  right  in  coming  to   the conclusion  that  the religion of the Swaminarayan  sect  is not,   distinct  and  separate  from  Hindu  religion,   and consequently,  the  temples belonging to the sect  did  fall within the ambit of s. 2 of the Act. The  Indian  mind has consistently through  the  ages,  been exercised,  over the problem of the nature of  godhead,  the problem  that faces the spirit at the end of life,  and  the interrelation between the individual and the universal soul. According to Hindu religion the ultimate goal of humanity is release  and freedom from the unceasing cycle of births  and rebirths  and a state of absorption and assimilation of  the individual  soul with the infinite.  On the means to  attain this  and  there  is  a  great  divergence  of  views;  some emphasise  the importance of Gyana, while others  extol  the virtue of Bhakti or devotion, and yet others insist upon the paramount  importance  of the performance of duties  with  a heart  full of devotion and in mind inspired  by  knowledge. Naturally  it was realised by Hindu religion from  the  very beginning  of  its  career that  truth  was  many-sided  and different  views contained different aspects of truth  which no one could fully express.  This knowledge inevitably  bred a  spirit  of tolerance and willingness  to  understand  and appreciate  the opponent’s point of view.  Because  of  this broad  sweep  of  Hindu  philosophic  concept  under   Hindu

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 26  

philosophy, there is no scope for excommunicating any notion or  principle  as heretical and rejecting it as  such.   The development of Hindu religion and philosophy shows that from time  to  time saints and religious reformers  attempted  to remove  from  Hindu  thought  and  practices,  elements   of corruption  and  superstition,  and  revolted  against   the dominance  of  rituals and the power of the  priestly  class with  which  it came to be associated; and that led  to  the formation  of  different  sects. in the  teaching  of  these saintns  and  religious reformers is  noticeable  a  certain amount   of  divergence  in  their  respective  views;   but underneath that divergence lie certain broad concepts  which can  be  treated  as basic, and there is a  kind  of  subtle indescribable  unity  which keeps them within the  sweep  of broad and progressive Hindu religion.  The first among these basic concepts is the acceptance of the Vedas as the highest authority  in  religious  and  philosophic  matters.    This concept  necessarily implies that all the systems  claim  to have  drawn  their principles from a  common,  reservoir  of thought  enshrined in the Vedas.  Unlike other religions  in the  world,  the  Hindu  religion does  not  claim  any  one prophet;  it  does  no( worship any one  God;  it  does  not subscribe to any one dogma;it does 244 not  believe  in any one philosophic concept;  it  does  not follow  any one set of religious rites or  performances;  in fact,  it  does not satisfy the traditional  features  of  a religion  or creed.  It is a way of life and  nothing  more. The  Constitution makers were fully conscious, of the  broad and  comprehensive  character of Hindu religion;  and  while guaranteeing  the fundamental right to freedom  of  religion made it clear that reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh,  Jaina or Buddhist religion. Philosophically, Swaminarayan was a follower of Ramanuja and the essence of his teachings is acceptance of the Vedas with reverence,  recognition of the fact that the path of  Bhakti or devotion leads to Maksha, insistence or devotion to Loard Krishna and a determination to remove corrupt practices  and restore  Hindu  Religion to its original glory  and  purity. This shows unambiguously and unequivocally that Swaminarayan was  a Hindu saint.  Further, the facts that  initiation  is necessary  to  become  a Satsangi,  that  persons  of  other religions  could  join the sect by  initiation  without  any process  of  proselytising  on  such  occasions,  and   that Swaminarayan   himself  is  treated  as  a  God,   are   not inconsistent with the basic Hindu religious and  philosophic theory.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 517 of 1964. Appeal  from the judgment and decree, dated October 3,  1958 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 107 of 52. Vasant J. Desai, M. L. Bhalja and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants. C.   K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, Atiqur Rehman and K. L. Hathi,    for respondent No. 1. C.   K.  Daphtary, Attorney-General, N. S. Bindra and B.  R. G. K. Achar, for respondent No. 2. S.   V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the intervener. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. The principal question which arises  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 26  

this  appeal is whether the Bombay High Court was  right  in holding that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya (sect) to which the appellants  belong, is not a religion distinct and  separate from  the Hindu religion, and that the temples belonging  to the said sect do come within the ambit of the provisions  of the   Bombay   Hindu  Places  of  Public   Worship   (Entry- Authorisation)  Act,  1956  (No. 31  of  1956)  (hereinafter called  ’the Act’).  The suit from which the present  appeal arises was instituted by the appellants on the 12th January, 1948,  in  the  Court  of  the  Joint  Civil  Judge,  Senior Division,  Ahmedabad.  Before the suit was  instituted,  the Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947 (No. 35 of 1947)  245 (Hereinafter called ’the former Act’) had come into force on the  23rd November, 1947.  The appellants are the  followers of the Swaminarayan sect, and are known as Satsangis.   They have  filed the present suit on behalf of themselves and  on behalf of the Satsangis of the Northern Diocese of the  sect at  Ahmedabad.   They  apprehended that  respondent  No.  1, Muldas  Bhudardas Vaishya, who is the President of the  Maha Gujarat  Dalit  Sangh at Ahmedabad, intended to  assert  the rights of the non-Satsangi Harijans to enter the temples  of the  Swaminarayan sect situated in the Northern  Diocese  at Ahmedabad in exercise of the legal rights conferred on  them by  s. 3 of the former Act of 1947.  Section 3 of  the  said Act had provided, inter alia, that every temple to which the Act  applied  shall be open to Harijans for worship  in  the same  manner  and  to the same extent  as  other  Hindus  in general.   To  this suit the appellants had  impleaded  five other respondents, amongst whom was included the Province of Bombay as respondent No. 4, under the order of the Court  at a later stage of the proceedings on the 18th July, 1949.  In their   plaint,   the  appellants  had  alleged   that   the Swaminarayan temple of Sree Nar Narayan Dev of Ahmedabad and all  the temples subordinate thereto are not temples  within the  meaning  of the former Act.  Their case, was  that  the Swaminarayan   sect  represents  a  distinct  and   separate religious  sect  unconnected  with  the  Hindus  and   Hindu religion,  and  as  such, their  temples  were  outside  the purview  of  the  said  Act.  On  the  basis  of  this  main allegation,  the  appellants claimed a  declaration  to  the effect that the relevant provisions of the said Act did  not apply  to their temples.  In the alternative, it  was  urged that  the  said Act was ultra vires.  As  a  consequence  of these   two  declarations,  the  appellants  asked  for   an injunction  restraining  respondent  No. 1  and  other  non- Satsangi  Harijans from entering the Swaminarayan temple  of the  Northern  Diocese of the Swaminarayan  sect;  and  they prayed  that  an  appropriate injunction  should  be  issued directing  respondents  2 and 3 who are the Mahants  of  the said  temples to take steps to prevent respondent No. 1  and the   other   non-Satsangi  Harijans   from   entering   and worshipping in the said temples. Pending  these proceedings between the parties,  the  former Act was amended by Bombay Act No. 77 of 1948; and later, the Constitution  of India came into force on the 26th  January, 1950.   As a result of these events, the appellants  applied for  an amendment of the plaint on the 30th November,  1950, and  the said application was granted by the  learned  trial Judge.  In consequence of 24 6 this  amendment,  the appellants took the  plea  that  their temples  were not temples within the meaning of  the  former Act  as amended by Act No. 77 of 1948; and they  urged  that the,  former Act was ultra vires the powers of the State  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 26  

Bombay inasmuch as it was inconsistent with the Constitution and  the  fundamental  rights guaranteed  therein.   It  was contended  by  them  that  the  Swaminarayan  sect  was   an institution distinct and different from Hindu religion, and, therefore,  the former Act as amended could not apply to  or affect  the  temples of the said sect.  On  this  additional ground,  the  appellants supported the  original  claim  for declarations and injunctions made by them in their plaint as it was originally filed. This suit was resisted by respondent No. 1. It was urged  on his  behalf  that the suit was not tenable at  law,  on  the ground  that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain  the suit  under  s.  5  of the former  Act.   Respondent  No.  1 disputed the appellants’ right to represent the Satsangis of the  Swaminarayan sect, and he averred. that many  Satsangis were in favour of the Harijans’ entry into the  Swaminarayan temples, even though such Harijans were not the followers of the  Swaminarayan sect.  According to him, the suit  temples were temples within the meaning of the former Act as amended and  that non-Satsangi Harijans had a legal right  of  entry and worship in the said temples.  The appellants’ case  that the  former  Act  was ultra vires, was  also  challenged  by respondent  No. 1. Respondents 2 and 3, the Mahants  of  the temples,  filed  purshis  that they did not  object  to  the appellants’  claim,  while respondent No. 4,  the  State  of Bombay, and respondents 5 and 6 filed no written statements. On  these pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed  several issues,  and  parties led voluminous  documentary  and  oral evidence in support of their respective contentions.   After considering this evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the  suit was maintainable and was not barred under s. 5  of the  former  Act.  He found that the former  Act  was  intra vires the legislative powers of the Bombay State and did not infringe   any   fundamental  rights  of   the   appellants. According to him, the Swaminarayan sect was not distinct and different from Hindu religion and as such, the suit  temples were temples which were used as places of religious  worship by the congregation of the Satsang which formed a section of the Hindu community.  The learned trial Judge, however, came to the conclusion that it had not been established that  the suit  temples were used by non-Satsangi Hindus as places  of religious  worship  by  custom,  usage  or  otherwise,   and consequently, they did not  247 come  within the meaning of the word "temple" as defined  by the  former Act.  Thus, the conclusion of the learned  trial Judge on this part of the appellants’ case decided the  fate of  the suit in their favour, though findings were  recorded by  the  trial Judge in favour of respondent No.  1  on  the other  issues.   In  the result, the trial  court  passed  a decree in favour of the appellants giving them  declarations and  injunctions  as  claimed by them.   This  judgment  was pronounced on the 24th September, 1951. The  proceedings  in  the trial court  were  protracted  and lasted  for nearly three years, because interim  proceedings which  led to certain interlocutory orders,  were  contested between the parties and were taken to the High Court on  two occasions before the suit was finally determined. The decision of the trial court on the merits was challenged by  Respondent  No.  4 and respondent No. 1  who  joined  in filing  the  appeal.  The appeal thus presented by  the  two respondents  was heard by the High Court on the  8th  March, 1957.   At  this hearing, two  preliminary  objections  were raised   by  the  appellants  against  the  competence   and maintainability of the appeal itself.  It was urged that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 26  

appeal  preferred  by respondent No. 4  was  not  competent, inasmuch  as respondent No. 4 had no locus standi to  prefer the  appeal in view of the fact that the former Act  in  the validity  of which respondent No. 4 was  vitally  interested had  been held to be valid.  This objection was  upheld  and the appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 was dismissed. In  regard to the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1,  the appellants  contended  that  the Vakalatnama  filed  on  his behalf was invalid and as such, the appeal purported to have been  preferred on his behalf was incompetent.   It  appears that respondent No.  1 had authorised the Government Pleader to  file  an appeal on his behalf, whereas  the  appeal  had actually  been  filed  by  Mr. Daundkar  who  was  then  the Assistant Government Pleader.  The High Court rejected  this objection and held that the technical Irregularity on  which the  objection  was founded could be cured by  allowing  the Government   Pleader  to  sign  the  memorandum  of   appeal presented  on  behalf  of  respondent  No.  1  and   endorse acceptance of his Vakalatnama. Having thus held that the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1  was competent, the High Court proceeded to  consider  the merits  of  the said appeal.  It was urged before  the  High Court  by  respondent  No.  1  that  the  declarations   and injunctions  granted to the appellants could not be  allowed to stand in view of the Untouch 10Sup.CI/63--3 248 ability (Offences) Act, 1955 (Central Act 22 of 1955)  which had  come  into  force on the 8th May, 1955  and  which  had repealed  the  former  Act.  This contention  did  not  find favour  with the High Court, because it took the  view  that the declarations and injunctions granted by the trial  court were not based on the provisions of the former Act, but were based on the view that the rights of the appellants were not affected  by the said Act.  The High Court observed that  in dealing  with the objections raised by respondent No. 1,  it was unnecessary to consider whether on the merits, the  view taken  by the trial court was right or not.  The only  point which  was relevant for disposing of the said objection  was to   consider  whether  any  relief  had  been  granted   to the.appellants  under  the provisions of the former  Act  or not;  and since the reliefs granted to the  appellants  were not under any of the said provisions, but were in fact based on  the  view that the provisions of the said  Act  did  not apply to the temples in suit, it could not be said that  the said   reliefs  could  not  survive  the  passing   of   the Untouchability  (Offences)  Act,  1955.   The  High   Court, however,  noticed that after the trial court pronounced  its judgments, the Bombay Legislature had passed the Act (No. 31 of  1956)  and respondent No. 1 naturally  relied  upon  the material  provisions  of this Act contained in s.  3.  Thus, though the substance of the controversy between the  parties remained  the same, the field of the dispute  was  radically altered.   The former Act had given place to the Act and  it now  became necessary to consider whether the Act was  intra vires,  and  if yes, whether it applied to  the  temples  in suit.   Having  regard to this altered  position,  the  High Court took the view that it was necessary to issue a  notice to  the  Advocate-General under O.27A of the Code  of  Civil Procedure.  Accordingly, a notice was issued to the Advocate General  and the appeal was placed before the High Court  on the 25th March, 1957 again.  At this hearing, the High Court sent  the  case  back to the trial  court  for  recording  a finding  on the issue "  whether the Swaminarayan temple  at Ahmedabad  and  the temples subordinate  thereto  are  Hindu

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 26  

religious institutions within the meaning of Art. 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution".  Both parties were allowed liberty  to lead additional evidence on this issue. After remand, the appellants did not lead any oral evidence, but  respondent  No. 1 examined two witnesses  Venibhai  and Keshavlal.  Keshavlal failed to appear for his final  cross- examination despite adjournments even though the trial court had appointed a Commission to record his evidence.  Nothing, however,  turned  upon this oral evidence.   In  the  remand proceedings,  249 it was not disputed before the trial court that the  temples in  suit  were  public  religious  institutions.   The  only question which was argued before the court was whether  they could  be regarded as Hindu temples or not,  The  appellants contended  that the suit temples were meant exclusively  for the followers of the Swaminarayan sect; and these followers, it  was  urged,  did not profess the  Hindu  religion.   The learned  trial Judge, however, adhered to the  view  already expressed   by  his  predecessor  before  remand  that   the congregation  of Satsang constituted a section of the  Hindu community;  and  so  he found that it was not  open  to  the appellants  to contend before him that the followers of  the Swaminarayan sect were not a section of the Hindu community. In  regard to the nature of the temples, the  learned  trial Judge considered the evidence adduced on the record by  both the parties and came to the conclusion that the Swaminarayan temples  at  Ahmedabad and the temples  subordinate  thereto were Hindu religious institutions within the meaning of Art. 25  (2) (b) of the Constitution.  This finding was  recorded by the trial Judge on the 24th March 1958. After this finding was submitted by the learned trial  Judge to  the  High  Court,  the Appeal was  taken  up  for  final disposal.   On’ this occasion, it was urged before the  High Court on behalf of the appellants that the members belonging to the Swaminarayan sect did not profess the Hindu  religion and, therefore, their temples could not be said to be  Hindu temples.  It was, however, conceded on their behalf that  in case  the  High  Court  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the Swaminarayan   sect  was  not  a  different  religion   from Hinduism,  the  conclusion could not be  resisted  that  the temples  in suit would be Hindu religious  institutions  and also places of public worship within the meaning of s. 2  of the   Act.   That  is  how  the  main  question  which   was elaborately  argued  before the High Court was  whether  the followers of the Swaminarayan sect could be said to  profess Hindu  religion  and be regarded as Hindus or not.   It  was urged  by the appellants that the Satsangis who  worship  at the  Swaminarayan  temple  may be Hindus  for  cultural  and social  purposes, but they are not persons professing  Hindu religion,  and as such they do not form a section, class  or sect or denomination of Hindu religion.  Broadly stated, the case for the appellants was placed before the High Court  on four grounds.  It was argued that Swaminarayan, the  founder of  the sect, considered himself as the Supreme God, and  as such. the sect that believes in the divinity of Swaminarayan cannot  be assimilated to the followers of  Hindu  religion. It  was  also  urged  that the  temples  in  suit  had  been established for the worship of 250 Swaminarayan  himself  and  not  for  the  worship  of   the traditional  Hindu  idols, and that again  showed  that  the Satsangi sect was distinct and separate from Hindu religion. It was further contended that the sect propagated the  ideal that  worship of any God other than Swaminarayan would be  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 26  

betrayal  of his faith, and lastly , that the  Acharyas  who had  been appointed by Swaminarayan adopted a  procedure  of "Initiation"  (diksha) which showed that on initiation,  the devotee  became  a  Satsangi  and  assumed  a  distinct  and separate character as a follower of the sect. The  High Court has carefully examined these contentions  in the light of the teachings of Swaminarayan, and has come  to the  conclusion  that  it was impossible to  hold  that  the followers  of  the Swaminarayan sect did not  profess  Hindu religion and did not form a part of the Hindu community.  In coming to this conclusion, the High Court has also  examined the  oral  evidence  on which  the  parties  relied.   While considering  this aspect of the matter, the High Court  took into  account  the  fact that in their  plaint  itself,  the appellants  had described themselves as Hindus and  that  on the  occasion  of  previous  censuses  prior  to  1951  when religion  and  community used to be  indicated  in  distinct columns  in, the treatment of census data, the followers  of the  sect  raised no objection to their being  described  as belonging to a sect professing Hindu religion. Having  thus  rejected  the main contention  raised  by  the appellants  in challenging their status as Hindus, the  High Court  examined the alternative argument which was urged  on their behalf in regard to the constitutional validity of the Act.   The argument was that the material provision  of  the Act was inconsistent with the fundamental rights  guaranteed by  Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and as  such  was invalid.  The High Court did not feet   impressed  by   this argument and felt no difficulty in rejecting it.  In     the result, the finding recorded by the trial Judge in favour of the  appellants in regard to their status and  character  as followers  of the Swaminarayan sect was  upheld;  inevitably the  decree  passed by the trial Judge was vacated  and  the suit  instituted  by  the  appellants  was  ordered  to   be dismissed.   It  is  against this decree  that  the  present appeal  has  been  brought to this Court  on  a  certificate issued by the High Court. Before dealing with the principal point which has been posed at  the  commencement of this Judgment, it is  necessary  to dispose  of two minor contentions raised by Mr. V. J.  Desai who appeared  251 for the appellants before us.  ’Mr.  Desai contends that the High Court Was in error in treating as competent ’the appeal preferred  by respondent No. 1. His case is that  since  the said  appeal  had  not been duly and  validly  filed  by  an Advocate authorised by respondent No. 1 in that behalf,  the High  Court should have dismissed the said appeal  as  being incompetent.   It will be recalled that the appeal  memo  as well  as the Vakalatnama filed along with it were signed  by Mr.  Daundkar who was then the Asstt.   Government  Pleader; and  the  argument is that since the  Vakalatnama  had  been signed  by  respondent  No. 1 in favour  of  the  Government Pleader, its acceptance by the Assistant Government  Pleader was invalid and that rendered the presentation of the appeal by the Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of  respondent No. 1 incompetent. O.41, r. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires,  inter alia, that every appeal shall be  preferred in  the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or  his Pleader and presented to the Court or to such officer as  it appoints  in that behalf. O. 3, r. 4 of the Code relates  to the  appointment of a Pleader.  Sub-r. (1) of the said  Rule provides,  inter  alia  that no Pleader shall  act  for  any person  in  any court unless he has been appointed  for  the purpose  by such person by a document in writing  signed  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 26  

such  person.  Sub-r. (2) adds that every  such  appointment shall  be filed in court and shall be deemed to be in  force until  determined with the leave of the Court in the  manner indicated  by it. Technically, it may be conceded  that  the memorandum of appeal presented by Mr. Daundkar suffered from the   infirmity  that  respondent  No.  1  had  signed   his Vakalatnama  in  favour of the Government  Pleader  and  Mr. Daundkar  could not have accepted It, though he was  working in   the  Government  Pleader’s  office  as   an   Assistant Government Pleader.  Even so, the said memo was accepted  by the  office  of the Registrar of the Appellate Side  of  the High  Court, because the Registry regarded the  presentation of  the  appeal to be proper, the appeal was in  due  course admitted and it finally came up for hearing before the  High Court.  The failure of the Registry to invite the  attention of  the  Assistant Government Pleader  to  the  irregularity committed  in the presentation of the said appeal cannot  be said  to be irrelevant in dealing with the validity  of  the contention  raised  by the appellants. if the  Registry  had returned   the  appeal  to  Mr.  Daundkar   as   irregularly presented,  the  irregularity could  have  been  immediately corrected and the Government Pleader would have signed  both the memo of appeal and the Vakalatnama.  It is an elementary rule of justice that no party should suffer for the  mistake of  the  court  or its Office.  Besides, one  of  the  rules framed by the High Court 252 on its Appellate Side-Rule 95-seems to authorise an Advocate practising on the Appellate Side of the High Court to appear even without initially filing a Vakalatnama in that  behalf. If  an  appeal  is  presented  by  an  Advocate  without   a Vakalatnama duly signed by the appellant, he is required  to produce  the  Vakalatnama  authorising him  to  present  the appeal  or to file a statement signed by himself  that  such Vakalatnama  has been duly signed by the appellant in  time. In  this case, the Vakalatnama had evidently been signed  by respondent  No.  1 in favour of the  Government  Pleader  in time;  and so, the High Court was plainly right in  allowing the  Government Pleader to sign the memo of appeal  and  the Vakalatnama in order to remove the irregularity committed in the  presentation of the appeal.  We do not think  that  Mr. Desai is justified in contending that the High Court was  in error  in overruling the objection raised by the  appellants before it that the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1  was incompetent. The  next contention which Mr. Desai has urged before us  is that  s. 3 of the Act is ultra vires.  Before  dealing  with this  contention, it is relevant to refer to the  series  of Acts which have been passed by the Bombay Legislature with a view  to  remove the disabilities from  which  the  Harijans suffered.  A brief resume of the legislative history on this topic  would  be of interest not only in  dealing  with  the contention raised by Mr. Desai about the invalidity of S. 3, but  in  appreciating the sustained and  deliberate  efforts which the Legislature has been making to meet the  challenge of untouchability. In  1958,  the Bombay Harijans Temple  Worship  (Removal  of Disabilities)  Act (No.  11 of 193 8) was passed.  This  Act represented  a  somewhat  cautious measure  adopted  by  the Bombay   Legislature   to   deal   with   the   problem   of untouchability.  It made an effort to feel the pulse of  the Hindu community in general and to watch its reactions to the efforts which the Legislature may make, to break through the citadel  of  orthodoxy, and conquer  traditional  prejudices against  Harijans.  This Act did not purport to  create  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 26  

statutory right which Harijans could enforce by claiming  an entry  into  Hindu temples; it only purported to  make  some enabling  provisions which would encourage  the  progressive elements  in the Hindu community to help the Legislature  in combating  the evil of untouchability.  The basic scheme  of this  Act was contained in sections 3, 4 & 5. The  substance of  the provisions contained in these sections was  that  in regard  to temples. the trustees could by a majority make  a declaration that  253 their temples would be open to Harijans notwithstanding  the terms  of  instrument of trust, the terms of  dedication  or decree or order of any competent court or any custom,  usage or law for the time being in force to the contrary.  Section 3  dealt  with  making of  these  declarations.   Section  4 required  the  publication of the said declarations  in  the manner  indicated  by it, and section 5  authorised  persons interested  in the temple in respect of which a  declaration had  been published under s. 4 to apply to the court to  set aside  the  said declaration.  If. such  an  application  is received,  the jurisdiction has been conferred on the  court to  deal with the said application.  Section  5(5)  provides that if the court is satisfied     that the applicant was  a person  interested  in  the temple  and  that  the  impugned declaration  was  shown not to have been  validly  made,  it shall  set  aside the declaration; if the court  is  not  so satisfied,  it shall dismiss the application.  Section  5(7) provides  that  the decision of the Court under  sub-s.  (5) shall be final and conclusive for the purposes of this  Act. The court specially      empowered   to  deal   with   these applications  means  the  court  of  a  District  Judge  and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction.  The jurisdiction thus conferred on  the court is exclusive with the result that s. 6 bars any  Civil Court  to entertain any complaint in respect of the  matters decided by the court of exclusive jurisdiction purporting to act  under  the  provisions of this Act.  This  Act  can  be regarded  as the first step taken by the Bombay  Legislature to  remove  the  disability  of  untouchability  from  which Harijans  had  been  suffering.   The  object  of  this  Act obviously  was  to invite cooperation from the  majority  of trustees  in  the  respective Hindu  temples  in  making  it possible  for  the Harijans to enter the  said  temples  and offer     prayers in them. Then  followed Act No. 10 of 1947 which was passed  by  the, Bombay  Legislature  to provide for the  removal  of  social disabilities  of  Harijans.  This Act was  passed  with  the object  of  removing  the several  disabilities  from  which Harijans  suffered  in regard to the  enjoyment  of  social, secular  amenities of life.  Section 3 of this Act  declared that notwithstanding anything contained in any instrument or any  law, custom or usage to the contrary, no Harijan  shall merely on the ground that he is a Harijan, be ineligible for office  under any authority constituted under any law or  be prevented  from enjoying the amenities described by  clauses (b)  (i)  to  (vii).  The other sections of  this  Act  made suitable provisions to enforce the statutory right conferred on the Harijans by s. 3.      254    Next we come to the former Act-No. 35 of 1947. We haveA already  seen that when the present plaint was filed by  the appellants,  they challenged the right of  the  non-satsangi Harijans to    enter the temples under S. 3 of this Act, and alternatively, they challenged  its validity. This  Act  was passed to entitle the    Harijans   to  enter  and   perform

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 26  

worship  in the temples in the Province of  Bombay.  Section 2(a) of this Act defines a "Harijan"    as meaning a  member of a caste, race or tribe deemed to be a     Scheduled caste under the Government of India (Scheduled     Castes)  Order, 1936.  Section 2(b) defines "Hindus" as including Jains;  S. 2(c)  defines  "temples’  as meaning  a  place  by  whatever designation known which is used as of right by, dedicated to or  for  the  benefit of the Hindus in  general  other  than Harijans  as  a  place of public religious worship;  and  S. 2(b) defines   "Worship" as including attendance at a temple for the purpose of  darshan’ of a deity or deities installed in or within the precincts    thereof.   Section   3   which contains the main operative provision   of  this  Act  reads thus :-               "Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  the               terms of   any instruments of trust, the terms               of dedication, the   terms  of  a sanad  or  a               decree or order of a competent court  or   any               custom, usage or law, for the time, being in  force               to the contrary every temple shall be open to   Hari jans               for worship in the same manner and to the   same               extent as to any member of the Hindu community               or any section thereof and the Harijans  shall               be    entitled to bathe in, or use the  waters               of any sacred   tank,  well, spring or  water-               course in the same manner and   to  the   same               extent as any member of the Hindu     Community               or any section thereof."      Section  4 provides for penalties. Section  5  excludes the  jurisdiction of Civil Courts to deal with any  suit  or proceeding if it involves a claim which if granted would  in any way be inconsistent with  the;provisions  of  this  Act. Section 6 authorises the police officer not  below the  rank of Sub-Inspector to arrest without warrant any    person who ;is reasonably suspected of having committed an   offence punishable under this Act.      Section 2(c) of the former Act was later amended by Act 77   of 1948. The definition of the word "temple" which  was thus inserted by the amending Act -reads thus :-  "Temple, means a place by whatever name known     and               to  whomsoever belonging, which is used  as  a               place                2 5 5               of  religious  worship  by  custom,  usage  or               otherwise   by  the  members  of   the   Hindu               community or any section thereof and  includes               all  land appurtenant thereto  and  subsidiary               shrines attached to any such place." It  will be recalled that after this amended definition  was introduced  in the former Act, the appellants asked for  and obtained  permission  to amend their plaint, and it  is  the claim  made  in the amended plaint by relation  to  the  new definition  of the word "temple" that parties  led  evidence before  the  trial court.  This act shows  that  the  Bombay Legislature  took the next step in 1947 and made a  positive contribution to the satisfactory solution of the problem  of untouchability.   It  conferred on the Harijans a  right  to enter temples to which the Act applied and to offer  worship in  them;  and we have already seen  that  worship  includes attendance  at  the temple for the purpose of darshan  of  a deity or deities in the precincts thereof. On  the  26th January, 1950 the Constitution of  India  came into  force, and Art. 17 of the  Constitution  categorically provided  that untouchability is abolished and its  practice

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 26  

in any form is forbidden.  The enforcement of any disability arising   out  of  "Untouchability"  shall  be  an   offence punishable  in  accordance  with  law.   In  a  sense,   the fundamental   right  declared  by  Art,  17  afforded   full justification  for the policy underlying the  provisions  of the former Act. After   the  Constitution  was  thus  adopted,   the-Central Legislature  passed the Untouchability (Offences) Act,  1955 (No. 22 of 1955).  This Act makes a comprehensive  provision for giving effect to the solemn declaration made by Art.  17 of  the  Constitution.  It extends not -only  to  places  of public   worship,   but   to  hotels,   places   of   public entertainment,  and shops as defined by s. 2 (a),  (b),  (c) and  (e).   Section 2 (d) of this Act defines  a  "place  of public  worship" as meaning a place by whatever  name  known which  is  used as a place of public  religious  worship  or which  is dedicated generally to, or is used  generally  by, persons   professing  any  religion-or  belonging   to   any religious  denomination  or any section  thereof,  for  ’the performance  of  any  religious  service,  or  for  offering prayers  therein;  and  includes all  lands  and  subsidiary shrines  appurtenant  or attached to any  such  place.   The sweep of ’the definitions prescribed by section 2  indicates the  very  broad field of  socio-religious  activities  over which  the mandatory provisions of this Act are intended  to operate.   It is not necessary for our purpose to  refer  to the  provisions  of this Act in detail.  ’It  is  enough  to state that ss. 3 to 7 of this Act provide 25 6 different    punishments    for   contravention    of    the constitutional  guarantee for the removal of  untouchability in   any   shape  or  form.   Having   thus   prescribed   a comprehensive   statutory   code   for   the   removal    of untouchability, s. 17 of this Act repealed twenty one  State Acts which had been passed by the several State Legislatures with  the same object.  Amongst the Acts thus  repealed  are Bombay Acts 10 of 1947 and 35 of 1947. That  takes us to the Act No. 31 of 1956-with which  we  are directly concerned in the present appeal.  After the Central Act 22 of 1955 was passed ’and the relevant Bombay  statutes of  1947 had been repealed by S. 17 of that Act, the  Bombay Legislature  passed  the Act.  The Act is intended  to  make better  provision for the throwing open of places of  public worship  to  all classes and sections of Hindus.   It  is  a short  Act  contain  8 sections.  Section  2  which  is  the definition section is very important; it reads thus :-               "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requir es,-               (a)"place  of public worship’ means  a  place,               whether a temple or by any other name  called,               to whomsoever belonging which is dedicated to,               or  for the benefit of, or is  used  generally               by,  Hindus, Jains, Sikhs or Buddhists or  any               section or class thereof, for the  performance               of  any  religious  service  or  for  offering               prayers  therein; and includes all  lands  and               subsidiary shrines appurtenant or attached  to               any  such  place, and also any  sacred  tanks,               walls,  springs, and water courses the  waters               of  which  are  worshipped, or  are  used  for               bathing or for worship;               (b)"section" or "class" of Hindus includes any               division, sub-division, caste, sub-caste, sect               or denomination whatsoever of Hindus."               Section  3 is the operative provision  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 26  

             Act and it is necessary to read it also :               "3.  Notwithstanding any custom, usage or  law               for the time being in force, or the decree  or               order of a court, or anything contained in any               instrument,  to the contrary, every  place  of               public   worship  which  is  open  to   Hindus               generally, or to any section or class thereof,               shall  be open to all sections and classes  or               Hindus; and no Hindu of whatsoever section  or               class,  shall  in  any  manner  be  prevented,               obstructed  or discouraged from entering  such               place of public worship, or from worship-                257               ping or offering prayers threat, or performing               any  religious  service therein, in  the  like               manner  and  to the like extent as  any  other               Hindu  of whatsoever section or class  may  so               enter, worship, pray or perform." Section 4(1) provides for penalties for the contravention of the provisions of the Act and s. 4(2) lays down that nothing in  this  section  shall  be taken  to  relate  to  offences relating  to  the practice of "untouchability".   Section  5 deals  with the abetment of offences prescribed by s.  4(1). Section  6 provides, inter alia, that no Civil  Court  shall pass any decree or order which in substance would in any way be contrary to the provisions of this Act.  Section 7  makes offences prescribed by s. 4(1) cognisable, and  compoundable with the permission of the Court; and s. 8 provides that the provisions  of  this  Act  shall  not  be  taken  to  be  in derogation  of any of the provisions of  the  Untouchability (Offences)  Act-22  of 1955-or any other law  for  the  time being in force relating to any of the matters dealt with  in this  Act.  That in brief is the outline of the  history  of the  Legislative efforts to combat and meet the  problem  of untouchability  and  to  help Harijans to  secure  the  full enjoyment of all rights guaranteed to them by Art. 17 of the Constitution. Let  us now revert to Mr. Desai’s argument that s. 3 of  the Act  is invalid inasmuch as it contravenes  the  appellants’ fundamental   rights   guaranteed   by  Art.   26   of   the Constitution.   Section 3 throws open the Hindu  temples  to all classes and sections of Hindus and it puts an end to any effort  to prevent or obstruct or discourage  Harijans  from entering  a place of public worship or from  worshipping  or offering prayers threat, or performing any religious service therein,  in the like manner and to the like extent  as  any other  Hindu  of whatsoever section or class may  so  enter, worship, pray or perform.  The object of the section and its meaning are absolutely clear.  In the matter of entering the Hindu  temple  or  worshipping, praying  or  performing  any religious service therein, there shall be no  discrimination between  any classes or sections of Hindus, and others.   In other  words, no Hindu temple shall obstruct a  Harijan  for entering the temple or worshipping in the temple or  praying in  it  or performing any religious service therein  in  the same manner and to the same extent as any other Hindu  would be permitted to do. Mr.  Desai contends that in the temples, in suit,  even  the Satsangi  Hindus  are not permitted to enter  the  innermost sacred part of the temple where the idols are installed.  It is  only the Poojaris who are authorised to enter  the  said sacred portion of the 258 temples  and do the actual worship of the idols by  touching the  idols  for the purpose of giving a bath to  the  idols,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 26  

dressing the idols, offering garlands to the idols and doing all  other ceremonial rites prescribed by  the  Swaminarayan tradition  and  convention; and his grievance  is  that  the words used in S. 3 are so wide that even this part of actual worship of the idols which is reserved for the Poojaris  and specially authorised class of worshippers, may be claimed by respondent No. 1 and his followers; and in so far as such  a claim  appears to be justified by s. 3 of the Act,  it  con- travenes  the provisions of Art. 26(b) of the  Constitution. Art.  26(b) provides that subject to public order,  morality and  health,  every religious denomination  or  any  section thereof  shall have the right to manage its own  affairs  in matters  of  religion, and so, the contention  is  that  the traditional  conventional  manner of performing  the  actual worship of the idols would be invaded if the broad words  of S.  3  are construed to confer on  non-Satsangi  Harijans  a right  to enter the innermost sanctuary of the  temples  and seek  to  perform that part of worship which  even  Satsangi Hindus are not permitted to do. In  our  opinion, this contention is misconceived.   In  the first place it is significant that no such plea was made  or could  have  been made in the plaint, because s.  3  of  the former Act which was initially challenged by the  appellants had  expressly  defined " worship" as including a  right  to attend  a  temple for the purpose of darshan of a  deity  or deities in or within the precincts thereof, and the cause of action  set out by the appellants in their plaint  was  ’hat they  apprehended  that respondent No. 1 and  his  followers would  enter  the temple and seek to obtain darshan  of  the deity   installed  in  it.   Therefore,  it  would  not   be legitimate  for the appellants to raise this new  contention for the first time when they find that the words used in  s. 3  of the Act are somewhat wider than the words used in  the corresponding section of the former Act. Besides, on the merits, we do not think that by enacting  s. 3, the Bombay Legislature intended to invade the traditional and  conventional manner in which the act of actual  worship of  the  -deity  is  allowed to be  performed  only  by  the authorised  Poojaris of the temple and by no  other  devotee entering the temple for darshan.  In many Hindu temples, the act  of  actual  worship  is  entrusted  to  the  authorised Poojaris  and  all  the devotees are allowed  to  enter  the temple up to a limit beyond which entry is barred :to  them, the innermost portion of the temple being reserved only  for the authorised Poojaris of the temple.    If that  259 is  so,  then all that s. 3 purports to do is  to  give  the Harijans the same right to enter the temple for ’darshan’ of the  deity as can be claimed by the other Hindus.  It  would be noticed that the right to enter the temple, to worship in the  temple,  to  pray in it or  to  perform  any  religious service  therein  which  has  been conferred  by  s.  3,  is specifically  qualified  by the clause that the  said  right will be enjoyed in the like manner and to the like extent as any other Hindu of whatsoever section or class may do.   The main  object of the section is to establish complete  social equality between all sections of the Hindus in the matter of worship specified by s. 3; and so, the apprehension on which Mr.   Desai’s  argument  is  based  must  be  held   to   be misconceived.  We are, therefore, satisfied that there is no substance  in the contention that s. 3 of the Act  is  ultra vires. That  takes us to the main controversy between the  parties. Are   the  appellants  justified  in  contending  that   the Swaminarayan  sect is a religion distinct and separate  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 26  

the Hindu religion, and consequently, the temples  belonging to the said sect do not fall within the ambit of s. 3 of the Act  ?  In  attempting  to answer  this  question,  we  must inevitably  enquire  what are the  distinctive  features  of Hindu -religion?  The consideration of this question,  prima facie,  appears  to  be somewhat  inappropriate  within  the limits  of judicial enquiry in a court of law.  It  is  true that  the  appellants  seek  for  reliefs  in  the   present litigation  on the ground that their civil rights to  manage their   temples  according  to  the  religious  tenets   are contravened;  and  so, the Court is bound to deal  with  the controversy as best as it can.  The issue raised between the parties is undoubtedly justiciable and has to be  considered as such; but in doing so, we cannot ignore the fact that the problem posed by the issue, though secular in character,  is very  complex  to determine; its decision  would  depend  on social,    sociological,    historical,    religious     and philosophical considerations; and when it is remembered that the development and growth of Hindu religion spreads over  a large  period  nearly  4,000 years, the  complexity  of  the problem would at once become patent. Who  are  Hindus and what are the broad  features  of  Hindu religion,  that  must be the first part of  our  enquiry  in dealing  with the present controversy between  the  parties. The historical and etymological genesis of the word "Hindu,’ has given rise to a controversy amongst indologists; but the view  generally accepted by scholars appears to be that  the word  "Hindu"  is derived from the  river  Sindhu  otherwise known  as Indus which flows from the Punjab.  "That part  of the great Aryan race", says Monier 260 Williams,  "which immigrated from Central Asia, through  the mountain  passes into India, settled first in the  districts near the river Sindhu (now called the Indus).  The  Persians pronounced  this word Hindu and named their  Aryan  brethren Hindus.   The Greeks, who probably gained their first  ideas of  India from the Persians, dropped the hard aspirate,  and called the Hindus "Indoi". (1)." The  Encyclopaedia  of Religion and Ethics,  Vol.   VI,  has described  "Hinduism" as the title applied to that  form  of religion  which  prevails  among the vast  majority  of  the present  population of the Indian Empire (p. 686).   As  Dr. Radhakrishnan  has observed; "The Hindu civilization  is  so called,  since its original founders or  earliest  followers occupied  the  territory drained by the Sindhu  (the  Indus) river  system  corresponding  to  the  North  West  Frontier Province and the Punjab.  This is recorded in the Rig  Veda, the  oldest  of the Vedas, the Hindu scriptures  which  give their name to this period Indian history.  The people on the Indian  side of the Sindhu were called Hindu by the  Persian and  the later western invaders".(2) That is the genesis  of the word "Hindu". When  we think of the Hindu religion, we find it  difficult, if  not  impossible,  to  define  Hindu  religion  or   even adequately  describe  it.   Unlike other  religions  in  the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does  not worship any one God; it does not subscribe to  any one  dogma;  it  does not believe  in  any  one  philosophic concept;  it does not follow any one set of religious  rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy  the narrow  traditional features of any religion or  creed.   It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more. Confronted  by this difficulty, Dr.  Radhakrishnan  realised that  "to  many  Hinduism seems to be  a  name  without  any content.  Is it a museum of beliefs, a medley of rites, or a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 26  

mere map, a geographical expression?"(3) Having posed  these questions  which  disturbed foreigners when  they  think  of Hinduism,  Dr. Radhakrishnan has explained how Hinduism  has steadily absorbed the customs and ideas of peoples with whom it has come into contact and has thus been able to  maintain its supremacy and its youth.  The term ’Hindu’, according to Dr.  Radhakrishnan, had originally a territorial and  not  a credal significance.  It implied residence in a well-defined geographical area.  Aboriginal tribes, (1)  "Hinduism" by Monier Williams, p. 1. (2)  "The Hindu View of Life" by Dr. Radhakrishnan,  p.  12. (3) Ibid p. 11.  261 savage  and half-civilized people, the  cultured  Dravidians and  the Vedic Aryans were all Hindus as they were the  sons of  the same mother.  The Hindu thinkers reckoned  with  the striking  fact  that  the men and women  dwelling  in  India belonged  to  different  communities,  worshipped  different gods, and practised different rites (Kurma Purana)(1). Monier Williams has observed that "it must be borne in  mind that Hinduism is far more than a mere form of theism resting on Brahmanism.  It presents for our investigation a  complex congeries  of  creeds  and doctrines which  in  its  gradual accumulation  may be compared to the gathering  together  of the  mighty  volume of the Ganges, swollen  by  a  continual influx  of tributary rivers and rivulets,  spreading  itself over   an  ever-increasing  area  of  country  and   finally resolving itself into an intricate Delta of tortuous  steams and   jungly  marshes........  The  Hindu  religion   is   a reflection of the composite character of the Hindus, who are not  one  people  but  many.  It is based  on  the  idea  of universal  receptivity.  It has ever aimed at  accommodating itself  to circumstances, and has carried on the process  of adaptation  through more than three thousand years.  It  has first borne with and then, so to speak, swallowed, digested, and assimilated something from all creeds."(2) We have already indicated that the usual tests which can  be applied in relation to any recognised religion or  religious creed in the world turn out to be inadequate in dealing with the  problem  of Hindu religion.  Normally,  any  recognised religion  or  religious creed subscribes to a  body  of  set philosophic  concepts  and theological beliefs.   Does  this test  apply  to  the  Hindu religion  ?  In  answering  this question,  we would base ourselves mainly on the  exposition of  the problem by Dr. Radhakrishnan in his work  on  Indian Philosophy. (3) Unlike other countries, India can claim that philosophy  in  ancient India was not an  auxiliary  to  any other  science or art, but always held a prominent  position of  independence.   The Mundaka Upanisad speaks  of  Brahma- vidya  or  the science of the eternal as the  basis  of  all sciences,  ’sarva-vidyapratishtha’.  According to  Kautilya, "Philosophy"  is the lamp of all the sciences, the means  of performing all the works, and the support of all the duties. "In  all  the  fleeting  centuries  of  history",  says  Dr. Radhakrishnan, "in all the vicissitudes through which  India has  passed, a certain marked identity is visible.   It  has held  fast to certain psychological traits which  constitute its special (1)  lbid p. 12. (2)  "Religious Thought & Life In India" by Monier Williams, p. 57. (3)  "Indian Philosophy" by Dr. Radhakrishrian, Vol. 1,  pp. 22-23. 262 heritage,  and they will be the characteristic marks of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 26  

Indian  people  so  long as they are privileged  to  have  a separate   existence".   The  history  of   Indian   thought emphatically  brings  out the fact that the  development  of Hindu religion has always been inspired by an endless  quest of the mind for truth based on the consciousness that  truth has  many  facets.  Truth is one, but wise men  describe  it differently.(1)  The Indian mind has,  consistently  through the  ages, been exercised over the problem of the nature  of godhead  the  problem that faces the spirit at  the  end  of life, and, the interrelation between the individual and  the universal  soul.   "If we can abstract from the  variety  of opinion",  says Dr. Radhakrishnan, "and observe the  general spirit  of  Indian  thought, we shall find  that  it  has  a disposition  to  interpret  life and nature in  the  way  of monistic  idealism,  though  this tendency  is  so  plastic, living  and manifold that it takes many forms and  expresses itself in even mutually hostile teachings".(2) The  monistic idealism which can be said to be  the  general distinguishing   feature  of  Hindu  Philosophy   has   been expressed  in  four  different forms :  (1)  Non-dualism  or Advitism;  (2)  Pure monism: (3) Modified  monism;  and  (4) Implicit  monism.   It is remarkable  that  these  different forms  of monistic idealism purport to derive  support  from the  same vedic and Upanishadic texts.   Shankar,  Ramanuja, Vallabha and Madhva all based their philosophic concepts  on what   they  regarded  to  be  the  synthesis  between   the Upanishads, the Brahmasutras and the Bhagavad Gita.   Though philosophic  concepts  and principles evolved  by  different Hindu thinkers and philosophers varied in many ways and even appeared  to conflict with each other in  some  particulars, they  all had reverence for the past and accepted the  Vedas as  the sole foundation of the Hindu philosophy.   Naturally enough,  it  was realised by Hindu religion  from  the  very beginning  of  its  career that  truth  was  many-sided  and different  views contained different aspects of truth  which no one could fully express.  This knowledge inevitably  bred a  spirit  of tolerance and willingness  to  understand  and appreciate  the opponents point of view.  That is  how  "the several  views  set forth in India in regard  to  the  vital philosophic  concepts are considered to be the  branches  of the  self-same  tree.  The short cuts and blind  alleys  are somehow  reconciled  with the main road of  advance  to  the truth."(3)  When we consider this broad sweep of  the  Hindu philosophic concepts, it would be realised that under  Hindu philosophy, there is no scope for ex- (2) lbid, p. 32.                        (3) lbid P. 48.  263 communicating  any  notion  or principle  as  heretical  and rejecting it as such. Max Muller who was a great oriental scholar of his time  was impressed by this comprehensive and all-pervasive aspect  of the  s‘weep  of  Hindu philosophy.   Referring  to  the  six systems known to Hindu philosophy, Max Muller observed: "The longer  I have studied the various systems, the more have  I become  impressed  with  the  truth of  the  view  taken  by Vijnanabhiksu and others that there is behind the variety of the six systems a common fund of what may be called national or   popular   philosophy,   a  large   manasa   (lake)   of philosophical  thought and language far away in the  distant North  and in the distant past, from which each thinker  was allowed to draw for his own purposes".(1) Beneath the diversity of philosophic thoughts, concepts  and ideas expressed by Hindu philosophers who started  different philosophic schools, lie certain broad concepts which can be treated as basic.  The first amongst these basic concepts is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 26  

the  acceptance  of  the Veda as the  highest  authority  in religious and philosophic matters.  This concept necessarily implies  that  all  the systems claim to  have  drawn  their principles from a common. reservoir of thought enshrined  in the  Veda.  The Hindu teachers were thus obliged to use  the heritage they received from the past in order to make  their views readily understood.  The other basic concept which  is common  to the six systems of Hindu philosophy is that  "all of  them  accept the view of the great world  rhythm.   Vast periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other   in   endless  succession.   This   theory   is   not inconsistent  with,  belief  in progress; for it  is  not  a question  of  the movement of the world  reaching  its  goal times  without  number, and being again forced back  to  its starting  point...... It means that the race of  man  enters upon and retravels its ascending path of realisation.   This interminable succession of world ages has no beginning(2) It may  also be said that all the systems of  Hindu  philosophy believe  in rebirth and pre-existence.  "Our life is a  step on  a road, the direction and goal of which are lost in  the infinite.   On  this  road,  death is never  an  end  of  an obstacle  but at most the beginning of new steps".(8)  Thus, it  is  clear  that unlike  other  religions  and  religious creeds,  Hindu religion is not tied to any definite  set  of philosophic concepts as such. Do  the  Hindus  worship at their temples the  same  set  or number of gods ? That is another question which can be asked in this (1)  "Six  Systems  of Indian Philosophy" by Max  Muller  p. xvii. (2) In      Philosophy" by Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vol.  IT.,  V. 26 (3)idib. L10 Sup.  C.I./6" 2 64 connection; and the answer to this question again has to  be in the negative.  Indeed, there are certain sections of  the Hindu  community  which  do not believe in  the  worship  of idols; and as regards those sections of the Hindu  community which  believe in the worship of idols, their  idols  differ from  community to community and it cannot be said that  one definite  idol or a definite number of idols are  worshipped by  all  the Hindus in general.  In the Hindu  Pantheon  the first  gods that were worshipped in Vedic times were  mainly Indra,  Varuna,  Vayu and Agni.  Later, Brahma,  Vishnu  and Mahesh came to be worshipped.  In course ,of time, Rama  and Krishna secured a place of pride in the Hindu Pantheon,  and gradually  as  different philosophic concepts held  sway  in different  sects  and  in different sections  of  the  Hindu ,community,  a  large number of gods were  added,  with  the result that today, the Hindu Pantheon presents the spectacle of  a  very  large  number of gods  who  are  worshipped  by different sections ,of the Hindus. The development of Hindu religion and philosophy shows  that from  time to time saints and religious reformers  attempted to  remove from the Hindu thought and practices elements  of corruption and superstition and that led to the formation of different  sects.  Buddha started Buddhism; Mahavir  founded Jainism;  Basava  became the founder of  Lingayat  religion, Dnyaneshwar  and Tuk-aram initiated the Varakari cult;  Guru Nank  inspired  Sikhism; Dayananda founded Arya  Samaj,  and Chaitanya  began  Bhakti  cult;  and  as  a  result  of  the teachings  of Ramakrishna and Viveka-nanda,  Hindu  religion flowered  into its most attractive, progressive and  dynamic form.   If  we  study  the teachings  of  these  saints  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 26  

religious reformers, we would notice an amount of divergence in  their respective views; but underneath that  divergence, there  is a kind of subtle indescribable unity  which  keeps them  within  the sweep of the broad and  progressive  Hindu religion. There are some remarkable features of the teachings of these saints  and  religious  reformers.   All  of  them  revolted against  the  dominance  of rituals and  the  power  of  the priestly class with which it came to be associated; and  all of them proclaimed their teachings not in Sanskrit which was the  monopoly  of the priestly class, but in  the  languages spoken  by the ordinary mass of people in  their  respective regions. Whilst  we  are dealing with this  broad  and  comprehensive ,aspect of Hindu religion, it may be permissible to  enquire what,  :according to this religion, is the ultimate goal  of humanity?  It  265 is  the  release  and freedom from the  unceasing  cycle  of births  and  rebirths;  Moksha  or  Nirvana,  which  is  the ultimate  aim of Hindu religion and  philosophy,  represents the  state  of absolute absorption and assimilation  of  the individual  soul with the infinite.  What are the  means  to attain  this  end  ? On this vital  issue,  there  is  great divergence  of views; some emphasise the importance of  Gyan or  knowledge, while others extol the virtues of  Bhakti  or devotion;   and  yet  others  insist  upon   the   paramount importance of the performance of duties with a heart full of devotion  and  mind  inspired by true  knowledge.   In  this sphere again, there is diversity of opinion, though all  are agreed  about  the ultimate goal.  Therefore,  it  would  be inappropriate to apply the traditional tests in  determining the extent of the jurisdiction of Hindu religion.  It can be safely  described  as a way of life based on  certain  basic concepts to which we have already referred. Tilak  faced this complex and difficult problem of  defining or  at  least describing adequately Hindu  religion  and  he evolved  a working formula which may be regarded  as  fairly adequate and satisfactory.  Said Tilak : "Acceptance of  the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or  ways  to salvation are diverse and  realisation  of  the truth  that  the number of gods to be worshipped  is  large, that   indeed  is  the  distinguishing  feature   of   Hindu religion"(1).   This  definition brings out  succinctly  the broad  distinctive  features  of  Hindu  religion.   It   is somewhat remarkable that this broad sweep of Hindu  religion has  been eloquently described by Toynbee.  Says  Toynbee  : "When we pass from the plane of social practice to the plane of  intellectual  outlook, Hinduism too comes  out  well  by comparison  with the religions and ideologies of the  South- West  Asian  group.  In contrast to these Hinduism  has  the same  outlook as the pre-Christian and pre-Muslim  religions and philosophies of the Western half of the old world.  Like them, Hinduism takes it for granted that there is more  than one valid approach to truth and to salvation and that  these different  approaches  are  not only  compatible  with  each other, but are complementary"(2). The  Constitution-makers were fully conscious of this  broad and comprehensive character of Hindu religion; and so, while guaranteeing  the fundamental right to freedom of  religion, Explanation  II  to Art. 25 has made it clear that  in  sub- clause  (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall  be construed as (B.G.Tilak’s"Gitarahasya") (2)  "The Present-Day Experiment in Western Civilisation" by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 26  

Toynbee, pp. 48-49. 266 including a reference to persons professing the Sikh,  Jaina or  Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu  religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. Consistently  with this constitutional provision, the  Hindu Marriage  Act,  1955; the Hindu Succession  Act,  1956;  the Hindu  Minority  and Guardianship Act, 1956; and  the  Hindu Adoptions  and  Maintenance  Act,  1956  have  extended  the application of these Acts to all persons who can be regarded as Hindus in this broad and comprehensive sense.  Section  2 of the, Hindu Marriage Act, for instance, provides that this Act applies-               (a)to any person who is a Hindu by religion in               any of its forms or developments, including  a               Virashaiva,  a Lingayat or a follower  of  the               Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,               (b)to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina,  or               Sikh by religion, and               (c)to  any  other person domiciled  in  the               territories  to which this Act extends who  is               not  a  Muslim,  Christian, Parsi  or  Jew  by               religion,  unless it is proved that  any  such               person  would  not have been governed  by  the               Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of               that  law  in respect of any  of  the  matters               dealt  with  herein if this Act had  not  been               passed. The same provision is made in the other three Acts to  which we have just referred. It is in the light of this position that we must now proceed to   consider  whether  the  philosophy  and   theology   of Swaminarayan   show   that  the   school   of   Swaminarayan constitutes a distinct and separate -religion which is not a part  of Hindu religion.  Do the followers of the said  sect fall outside the Hindu brotherhood, that is the crux of  the problem  which  we have to face in the present  appeal.   In deciding this question, it is necessary to consider  broadly the  philosophic and theological tenets of Swaminarayan  and the  characteristics  which marked the  followers  of  Swami narayan who are otherwise known as Satsangis. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, it would be safe to  rely upon the data furnished by Monier Williams  in  his book  "Religious thought and life in India" (1883).   It  is hardly necessary to emphasise that Monier Williams played  a very important role in explaining the religious thought  and life  in India to the English-speaking world outside  India. "Having been a 2 67 student  of  Indian sacred literature for  more  than  forty years," observed Monier Williams "and having twice travelled over  every  part of India, from Bombay  to  Calcutta,  from Cashmere  to  Ceylon,  I may possibly hope  to  make  a  dry subject  fairly attractive without any serious sacrifice  of scientific  accuracy, while at the same time it will  be  my earnest  endeavour  to hold the scales  impartially  between antagonistic religious systems and as far as possible to  do justice  to the amount of truth that each may  contain"  (P. 1).   It is remarkable tribute to the scholarship of  Monier Williams  and  of his devotion to the mission which  he  had undertaken  that  though his book was written  as  early  as 1883,  it  is  still  regarded  as  a  valuable  source   of information  in  dealing with problems  connected  with  the religious thought and life in India. Let us then refer briefly to the life story of  Swaminarayan

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 26  

for  that  would help us to understand  and  appreciate  the significance  of  his philosophic and  religious  teachings. The  original  name  of Swaminarayan  was  Sahajananda.   By birth, he was a high-caste Brahaman.  He was born at Chapai, a village 120 miles to the North-west of Lucknow, about  the year  1780.  He was born to Vaishnava parents, but early  in his career he was "disgusted with the manner of life of  the so-called  followers of Vallabhacharya, whose  precepts  and practice  were utterly at variance, and especially with  the licentious  habits  of the Bombay Maharajas."  He  was  then determined  to denounce these irregularities and expose  the vices that had crept into the lives of the Bombay Maharajas. Swaminarayan was a celibate and he "lived an ascetical,  yet withal  a  large-hearted and philanthropic,  life"  and  the showed a great aptitude for learning.  In 1800, he left  his home  and placed himself under the protection of  the  chief Guru,  named  Ramananda  Swami  at  a  village  within   the jurisdiction  of the Junagarh Nawab.  When  Ramananda  Swami removed  to  Ahmedabad in 1804,  Sahajananda  followed  him. Soon  Sahajananda  collected  around him a  little  band  of disciples,  which  rapidly  grew "into an  army  of  devoted adherents".   That  naturally  provoked  the  wrath  of  the orthodox  Brahmans  and magnates of Ahmedabad who  began  to persecute him.  That drove Sahajananda to Jetalpur, 12 miles south  of  Ahmedabad,  which became the, focus  of  a  great religious gathering.  Thousands of people were attracted  by this  young  religious  teacher who now  took  the  name  of Swaminarayan.   Swaminarayan  then retired to  the  secluded village  of  Wartal, where he erected a temple  to  Narayana (otherwise  Krishna,  or  Vishnu,  as  the  Supreme   Being) associated  with  the goddess Lakshmi.   From  this  Central scene  of his religious activities, Swaminarayan  mounted  a strong crusade 2 68 against   the  licentious  habits  of  the  gurus   of   the Vallabhacharya sect.  His watchword was "devotion to Krishna with  observance  of,  duty and purity of  life".   The  two principal  temples of the Swaminarayan sect are  at  Wartal, which is about four miles to the west of the Baroda  railway station, and at Ahmedabad. In about 1826-27, a formal constitution of the sect  appears to  have  been prepared; it is known as the  ’Iekh’  or  the document  for  the apportionment of  territory  (Deshvibhaga Lekh).   By this document, Swaminarayan divided  India  into two  parts  by  a national line  running  from  Calcutta  to Navangar and established dioceses, the northern one with the temple  of  Nar Narayan at Ahmedabad, and the  southern  one which  included the temple of Lakshminarayan at Wartal.   To preside over these two dioceses Swaminarayan adopted his two nephews    Ayodhyaprasad    and    Raghuvir    respectively. Subordinate  to these Gadis and the principal  temples,  two score  large  temples and over a  thousand  smaller  temples scattered  all  over  the country came to be  built  in  due course. The Constitution of the Swaminarayan sect and its tenets and practices are collected in four different scriptures of  the faith  viz., (1) the "Lekh" to which we have just  referred; (2)  the  "Shikahapatri"  which was  originally  written  by Swaminarayan  himself  in  about  1826  A.D.;  the  original manuscript  does  not  appear  to  be  available,  but   the Shikshapatri was subsequently rendered into Sanskrit  verses by  Shatanandswami  under  the  directions  of  Swaminarayan himself.   This  Sanskrit  translation  is  treated  by  the followers of Swaminarayan as authentic.  This book was later translated   into   Gujarati  by  another   disciple   named

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 26  

Nityanand.   This Shikshapatri is held in high reverence  by the followers of the faith as a prayer book and it  contains summary of Swaminarayan’s instructions and principles  which have to be followed by his disciples in their lives; (3) the "Satsangijiwan" which consists of five parts and is  written in   Sanskrit   by   Shathnand  during   the   lifetime   of Swaminarayan.   This work gives an account of the  life  and teachings   of  Swaminarayan.   It  appears  to  have   been completed  in about 1829.  Shikshapatri has been bodily  in- corporated  in this work; (4) the "Vachanamrit" which  is  a collection  of  Swaminarayan’s sermons  in  Gujarati.   This appears  to  have  been  prepared  between  1828  and  1830. Swaminarayan died in 1830. It  is  necessary  at this stage  to  indicate  broadly  the principles  which Swaminarayan preached and which he  wanted his followers to adopt in life.  These principles have  been suscinctly sum- 269 marised  by  Monier Williams.  It is interesting  to  recall that   before   Monier  Williams  wrote   his   Chapter   on Swaminarayan  sect he visited the Wartal temple  in  company with  the Collector of Kaira on the day of the  Purnima,  or full  moon of the month of Karttik which is regarded as  the most popular festival of the whole year by the  Swaminarayan sect.   On the occasion of this visit, Monier  Williams  had long  discussions with the followers of Swaminarayan and  he did his best to ascertain the way Swaminarayan’s  principles were preached and taught and the way they were, practised by the  followers of the sect.  We will now  briefly  reproduce some of the principles enunciated by Swaminarayan. "The  killing of any animal for the purpose of sacrifice  to the gods is forbidden by me.  Abstaining from injury is  the highest of all duties.  No flesh meat must ever be eaten, no spirituous or vinous liquor must ever be drunk, not even  as medicine.   My male followers should make the vertical  mark (emblematical  of the footprint of Vishnu or  Krishna)  with the  round spot inside it (symbolical of Lakshmi)  on  their foreheads.   Their wives should only make the circular  mark with  red powder or saffron.  Those who are  initiated  into the  proper worship of Krishna should always wear  on  their necks two rosaries made of ‘Tulsi wood, one for Krishna  and the other for Radha.  After engaging in mental worship,  let them  reverently bow down before the pictures of  Radha  and Krishna,  and repeat the eight-syllabled prayer  to  Krishna (Sri  Krishnan  saranam mama, ’Great Krishna  is  my  soul’s refuge’)  as  many times as possible.  Then let  them  apply themselves  to secular affairs.  Duty (Dharma) is that  good practice  which is enjoined both by the Veda (Sruti) and  by the law (Smriti) founded on the Veda.  Devotion (Bhakti)  is intense love for Krishna accompanied with a due sense of his glory.   Every day all my followers should go to the  Temple of God, and there repeat the names of Krishna.  The story of his life should be listened to with the great reverence, and hymns in his praise should be sung on festive days.  Vishnu, Siva, Ganapati (or Ganesa), Parvati, and the Sun; these five deities should be honoured with worship.  Narayana and  Siva should  be equally regarded as part of one and same  Supreme Spirit,  since  both have been declared in the Vedas  to  be forms  of  Brahma.  On no account let it  be  supposed  that difference  in forms (or names) makes any difference in  the identity  of the deity.  That Being, known by various  names -such as the glorious Krishna, Param Brahma, Bhagavan, Puru- shottama-the cause of all manifestations, is to be adored by us  as  our one chosen deity.   The  philosophical  doctrine approved by me is the Visishtadvaita (of Ramanuja), and  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 26  

desired heavenly 270 abode is Goloka. there to worship Krishna and be united with him as the Supreme Soul is to be considered salvation.   The twice  born  should  perform  at  the  proper  seasons,  and according  to  their  means, he  twelve  purification  rites (sankara), the (Six) daily duties, and the Sradha  offerings to  the spirits of departed ancestors.  A pilgrimage to  the Tirthas, or holy places, of which Dwarika (Krishna’s city in Gujarat)  is  the chief, should be  performed  according  to rule.   Almsgiving  and kind acts towards the  poor  ,Should always be performed by all.  A tithe of one’s income  should be  assigned  to Krishna; the poor should give  a  twentieth part.  Those males and females of my followers who will  act according  to  these directions shall certainly  obtain  the four  great  objects of all human  desires-religious  merit, wealth, pleasure, and beatitude"(1). The  Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency has  summarised  the teachings embodied in the Shikshapatri in this way :-               "The  book of precepts strictly prohibits  the               destruction   of  animal   life;   promiscuous               intercourse with the other sex; use of  animal               food  and intoxicant liquors and drugs on  any               occasion,  suicide, theft and  robbery;  false               accusation  against a  fello-wman,  blasphemy;               partaking of food with low caste people; caste               pollution;  company of atheists  and  heretics               and other practices which might counteract the               effect of the founder’s teachings".(2) It  is interesting to notice how a person is initiated  into the  sect of Satsangis.  The ceremony of initiation is  thus described in the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency :-               "The  ceremony of initiation begins  with  the               novice  offering a palmful of water  which  he               throws  on  the  ground at  the  feet  of  the               Acharya   saying  :  I  give  over  to   Swami               Sahajanand my mind, body, wealth, and sins  of               (all)  births, ’Man’, tan, dhan,  and  janmana               pap.  He is then given the sacred formula ’Sri               Krishnastwam gatirmama, Shri Krishna thou  art               my refuge.  The novice then pays at least half               a rupee to the Acharya.  Sometimes the Acharya               delegates his authority to admit followers  as               candidates  for regular  discipleship,  giving               them  the  Panch Vartaman,  formula  forbiding               lying,   theft,  adultery,  intoxication   and               animal food.  But a (1)  "Religious  thought  and  life  in  India"’  By  Monier Williams pp. 155-58. (2)  Gazetteer  of the Bombay Presidency, Vol.  IX, Part  1, Gujarat Population, 1901, p. 537. 2 7 1 .lm15 perfect disciple can be made only after receiving the  final formula  from one of the two Acharyas.   The  distinguishing mark,  which  the disciple is then allowed to  make  on  his forehead, is a vertical streak of Gopichandan clay or sandal with  a round redpowder mark in the middle and a necklet  of sweet basil beads".(1) Now that we have seen the main events in the life and career of Swaminarayan and have examined the broad features of  his teachings,  it becomes very easy to, decide the question  as to  whether the Swammarayan sect constitutes a distinct  and separate religion and cannot be regarded as a part of  Hindu religion.  In our opinion, the plea raised by the appellants

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 26  

that  the Satsangis who follow the Swaminarayan sect form  a separate  and  distinct community different from  the  Hindu community  and  their religion is a  distinct  and  separate religion   different  from  Hindu  religion,   is   entirely misconceived.   Philosophically, Swaminarayan is a  follower of Ramanuja, and the essence of his teachings is that  every individual  should  follow the main Vedic injunctions  of  a good, pious and religious life and should attempt to  attain salvation  by  the path of devotion to  Lord  Krishna.   The essence  of  the  initiation  lies  in  giving  the   person initiated the secret ’Mantra’ which is : "Lord Krishna, thou art  my refuge : Lord Krishna, I dedicate myself  to  thee’. Acceptance  of the Vedas with reverence recognition  of  the fact  that the path of Bhakti or devotion leads  to  Moksha, and insistence on devotion to Lord Krishna unambiguously and unequivocally  proclaim that Swaminarayan was a Hindu  saint who was determined to remove the corrupt practices which had crept  into  the  lives of the preachers  and  followers  of Vallabhacharya, and who wanted to restore the Hindu religion to its original glory and purity.  Considering the work done by Swaminarayan, history will not hesitate to accord him the place of honour in the galaxy of Hindu saints and  religious reformers  who by their teachings, have contributed to  make Hindu religion ever alive, youthful and vigorous. It is, however, urged that there are certain features of the Satsangi  followers of Swaminarayan which indicate that  the sect is a different community by itself and its religion  is not  a part of Hindu religion.  It is argued that no  person becomes  a  Satsangi by birth and it is only  by  initiation that  the  status  of Satsangi is  conferred  on  a  person. Persons  of  other  religions  and  Harijans  can  join  the Satsangi sect by initiation.  Swaminarayan himself is (1)  Gazetteer  of the Bombay Presidency, Vol.  IX  Part  1, Gujarat Population, pp. 538-39. 2 72            . treated as a God and in the main temple, worship is  offered to  Swaminarayan pre-eminently; and that, it is  argued,  is not consistent with the accepted notions of Hindu  religion. Women  can take Diksha and become followers of  Swaminarayan though Diksha to women is given by the wife of the  Acharya. Five vows have to be taken by the followers of the  Satsang, such as abstinence from drinking, from non-vegetarian  diet, from illegal sexual relationship, from theft and from inter- pollution.   Separate arrangements are made for Darshan  for women, special scriptures are honoured and special  teachers are appointed to worship in the temples.  Mr. Desai contends that having regard to all these distinctive features of  the Swaminarayan  sect, it would be difficult to hold that  they are  members  of the Hindu community and their  temples  are places  of public worship within the meaning of s. 2 of  the Act. We are not impressed by this argument.  Even a cursory study of the growth and development of Hindu religion through  the ages  shows  that whenever a saint or a  religious  reformer attempted the task of reforming Hindu religion and  fighting irrational  or corrupt practices which had crept into it,  a sect  was  born which was governed by its  own  tenets,  but which  basically  subscribed to the fundamental  notions  of Hindu  religion  and Hindu philosophy.  It  has  never  been suggested that these sects are outside the Hindu brotherhood and  the  temples which they honour are not  Hindu  temples, such as are contemplated by s. 3 of the Act.  The fact  that Swaminarayan  himself is worshipped in these temples is  not inconsistent with the belief which the teachings of Bhagvad- Gita   have  traditionally  created  in  all  Hindu   minds.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 26  

According  to the Bhagvad-Gita, whenever religion is on  the decline and irreligion is in the ascendance, God is born  to restore the balance of religion and guide the destiny of the human  race towards salvation.(1) The birth of  every  saint and  religious reformer is taken as an illustration  of  the principle thus enunciated by Bhagvad-Gita; and so, in course of  time, these saints themselves are honoured, because  the presence  of divinity in their lives inevitably places  them on the high pedestal of divinity itself.  Therefore, we  are satisfied  that  none  of the reasons  on  which  Mr.  Desai relies, justifies his contention that the view taken by  the High Court is not right. It  is true that the Swaminarayan sect gives Diksha  to  the followers  of  other  religions  and as  a  result  of  such initiation, they Gita 4 .7.  273 become  Satsangis  without  losing their  character  as  the followers  of  their own individual religions.   This  fact, however,  merely shows that the Satsang philosophy  preached by  Swaminarayan  allows  followers of  other  religions  to receive  the  blessings of his teachings  without  insisting upon  their  forsaking their own religions.  The  fact  that outsiders  are  willing to accept Diksha  or  initiation  is taken as an indication of their sincere desire to absorb and practice  the philosophy of Swaminarayan and that  alone  is held  to  be  enough  to  confer  on  them  the  benefit  of Swaminarayan’s  teachings.  The fact that the sect does  not insist  upon  the actual process of  proselytising  on  such occasions  has really no relevance in deciding the  question as to whether the sect itself is a Hindu sect or not.  In  a sense, this attitude of the Satsang sect is consistent  with the  basic Hindu religious and philosophic theory that  many roads  lead  to God.  Didn’t the  Bhagavad-Gita  say:  "even those who profess other religions and worship their gods  in the manner prescribed by their religion, ultimately  worship me  and  reach me."(1) Therefore, we have no  hesitation  in holding  that  the  High Court was right in  coming  to  the conclusion   that  the  Swaminarayan  sect  to   which   the appellants  belong is not a religion distinct  and  separate from Hindu religion, and consequently, the temples belonging to  the  said sect do fall within the ambit of s. 2  of  the Act. The  present  suit began its career in 1948 and it  was  the result  of the appellants’ apprehension that the  proclaimed and  publicised  entry of the  non-Satsangi  Harijans  would constitute  a violent trespass on the religious  tenets  and beliefs  of the Swaminarayan sect.  The appellants  must  no doubt,  have realised that if non-Satsangi Hindus  including Harijans enter the temple quietly without making any  public announcement  in  advance,  it would be  difficult,  if  not impossible,  to bar their entry; but since respondent No.  1 publicly  proclaimed that he and his followers would  assert their right of entering the temples, the appellants  thought occasion had arisen to bolt the doors of the temples against them;  and  so,  they  came to  the  Court  in  the  present proceedings  to ask for the Court’s command to  prevent  the entry of respondent No. 1 and his followers. It  may  be  conceded that the genesis of the  suit  is  the genuine  apprehension entertained by the appellants; but  as often  happens  in these matters, the said  apprehension  is founded    on   superstition,   ignorance    and    complete misunderstanding of the true teachings                          Gita 9.23. 27 4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 26  

of Hindu religion and of the real significance of the tenets and philosophy taught by Swaminarayan himself. While this litigation was slowly moving from Court to Court, mighty events of a revolutionary character took place on the national  scene.   The Constitution came into force  on  the 26th  January,  1950 and since then, the  whole  social  and religious  outlook  of the Hindu community has  undergone  a fundamental  change  as a result of the  message  of  social equality and justice proclaimed by the Indian  Constitution. We have seen how the solemn promise enshrined in Art. 17 has been  gradually, -but irresistibly, enforced by the  process of  law  assisted by enlightened public  conscience.   As  a consequence, the controversy raised before us in the present appeal has today become a matter of mere academic  interest. We  feel confident that the view which we are taking on  the merits  of  the dispute between the parties in  the  present appeal not only accords with the true legal position in  the matter,  but  it will receive the spontaneous  approval  and response  even from the traditionally conservative  elements of  the Satsang community .Whom the appellants represent  in the  present  litigation.  In conclusion, we would  like  to emphasise  that  the right to enter temples which  has  been vouchsafed to the Harijans by the impugned Act in  substance symbolises  the  right  of  Harijans  to  enjoy  all  social amenities and rights, for, let it always be remembered  that social justice is the main foundation of the democratic  way of  life  ,,enshrined  in  the  provisions  of  the   Indian Constitution. The result is, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. 275