Sastri Yagnapurushadji v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya

The Satsangis, followers of the Swaminarayan sect, said their temples were outside the Hindu religion and closed to non-Satsangi Harijans. The Supreme Court asked who is a Hindu and what Hindu religion is. It held that the Swaminarayan sect is a Hindu sect, so the Bombay temple entry law applies to its temples.

Quick Revision

Read the full judgment: Indian Kanoon (unofficial copy)

Parties

Sastri Yagnapurushadji and others — appellants; followers of the Swaminarayan sect, known as Satsangis. They sued for themselves and the Satsangis of the Northern Diocese of the sect at Ahmedabad.

Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya — respondent No. 1; President of the Maha Gujarat Dalit Sangh at Ahmedabad. He asserted the right of non-Satsangi Harijans to enter the temples.

Respondents 2 and 3 — the Mahants of the temples. They filed a purshis (a short written statement) that they did not object to the appellants' claim.

Respondent No. 4 — the Province (later State) of Bombay, added by the trial court by order of 18 July 1949. Its appeal to the High Court was dismissed as incompetent.

Respondents 5 and 6 — filed no written statements. The judgment records no other details about them.

The intervener — the report lists the Solicitor-General for an intervener. The judgment does not name the intervener or record its position.

Procedural History

1. Former Act. The Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947 (No. 35 of 1947) came into force on 23 November 1947 (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
2. Trial court. The appellants filed the suit on 12 January 1948 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
3. The State of Bombay was joined as respondent No. 4 on 18 July 1949. The former Act was amended by Bombay Act No. 77 of 1948, and the Constitution came into force on 26 January 1950 (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
4. On 30 November 1950 the trial Judge allowed the appellants to amend the plaint. They then pleaded that the amended Act was ultra vires and that their temples were outside it (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
5. The trial Judge passed a decree for the appellants on 24 September 1951. He recorded findings for respondent No. 1 on the other issues, and the finding on temple use alone decided the suit for the appellants. He held the suit maintainable and the former Act intra vires (within the legislature’s power) (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
6. He also held the sect was not distinct from Hindu religion. But he held that the temples were not shown to be used by non-Satsangi Hindus by custom or usage, so they were outside the word temple in the former Act (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
7. High Court, first hearing (8 March 1957). Respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 1 appealed together. The appellants raised two preliminary objections (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
8. The High Court dismissed respondent No. 4's appeal, as it had no locus standi (standing to sue). It rejected the vakalatnama objection to respondent No. 1's appeal and cured the irregularity by letting the Government Pleader sign (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
9. Respondent No. 1 relied on the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (in force from 8 May 1955). The High Court rejected the point. It said the reliefs rested on the view that the Act did not apply to the temples, not on the former Act (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
10. The Bombay Legislature then passed Act No. 31 of 1956. The High Court gave notice to the Advocate-General under Order 27A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
11. Remand (25 March 1957). The High Court asked the trial court to record a finding on whether the temples are Hindu religious institutions within Article 25(2)(b). Both sides could lead more evidence (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
12. After remand, the appellants led no oral evidence. Respondent No. 1 examined two witnesses, Venibhai and Keshavlal. Keshavlal did not appear for final cross-examination, though the trial court had appointed a Commission to record his evidence. Nothing turned on the oral evidence (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
13. It was not disputed that the temples were public religious institutions. The appellants argued that the temples were meant only for followers of the sect, who did not profess Hindu religion (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
14. The trial Judge held it was not open to them to say the followers were not a section of the Hindu community. He held on 24 March 1958 that the temples were Hindu religious institutions (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
15. At the final hearing the appellants conceded that, if the sect was not a different religion from Hinduism, the temples would be Hindu religious institutions and places of public worship under Section 2 of the Act (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
16. The appellants also argued that the Act conflicted with Articles 25 and 26. The High Court felt no difficulty in rejecting the argument (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
17. High Court, final decision. By judgment and decree dated 3 October 1958 in First Appeal No. 107 of 1952, the High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. It held the sect professed Hindu religion and the 1956 Act was valid (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
18. Supreme Court. The appeal came on a certificate issued by the High Court (Civil Appeal No. 517 of 1964) and was decided on 14 January 1966 (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).

Facts

1. The appellants belong to the Swaminarayan sect and are called Satsangis (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
2. Section 3 of the former Act said every temple to which the Act applied must be open to Harijans for worship in the same manner and to the same extent as other Hindus. Harijans could also bathe in, or use the waters of, any sacred tank, well, spring or watercourse in the same manner as other Hindus (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
3. The appellants feared that respondent No. 1 would assert the right of non-Satsangi Harijans to enter the Swaminarayan temples in the Northern Diocese at Ahmedabad (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
4. They said the Swaminarayan temple of Sree Nar Narayan Dev at Ahmedabad and its subordinate temples were not temples within the former Act. Their case was that the sect was a distinct religion, unconnected with the Hindus (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
5. They claimed a declaration that the Act did not apply to their temples. In the alternative, they said the Act was ultra vires (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
6. They asked for an injunction restraining respondent No. 1 and other non-Satsangi Harijans from entering the temple. They also asked for an injunction directing respondents 2 and 3, the Mahants, to prevent entry (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
7. Respondent No. 1 said the suit was not tenable, as the court had no jurisdiction under Section 5 of the former Act. He disputed the appellants' right to represent the Satsangis and said many Satsangis favoured Harijan entry (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
8. He said the temples were within the Act and that non-Satsangi Harijans had a legal right of entry and worship. He also challenged the plea that the Act was ultra vires (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
9. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a purshis that they did not object to the appellants' claim. Respondent No. 4 and respondents 5 and 6 filed no written statements (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
10. The trial court proceedings lasted nearly three years. Interim proceedings were taken to the High Court twice, and parties led voluminous documentary and oral evidence (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
11. The appeal memo and the vakalatnama were signed by Mr. Daundkar, then the Assistant Government Pleader. Respondent No. 1 had signed his vakalatnama in favour of the Government Pleader (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
12. On four grounds the appellants argued before the High Court that the sect was not Hindu. Swaminarayan considered himself the Supreme God. The temples were for worship of Swaminarayan himself. Worship of any other God would betray the faith. Initiation (diksha) made a devotee a Satsangi (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
13. The High Court noted that the appellants had described themselves as Hindus in their plaint. It also noted that, at earlier censuses, followers of the sect had not objected to being described as a sect professing Hindu religion (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).

Issues Raised

1. Was the High Court right to treat the appeal by respondent No. 1 as competent, given the vakalatnama irregularity?
2. Is Section 3 of the Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry-Authorisation) Act, 1956 ultra vires because it contravenes Article 26(b) of the Constitution?
3. Is the Swaminarayan sect a religion distinct and separate from Hindu religion, so that its temples fall outside the ambit of the 1956 Act?

Arguments Contended

For the appellants (Vasant J. Desai, M.L. Bhalja and A.G. Ratnaparkhi):

• The High Court erred in treating the appeal by respondent No. 1 as competent. The Government Pleader was authorised, but the Assistant Government Pleader filed it, so the vakalatnama was invalid (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• Section 3 of the 1956 Act is ultra vires as it contravenes Article 26(b). Even Satsangi Hindus may not enter the innermost sacred part, where only the Poojaris do the actual worship of the idols (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• The words of Section 3 are so wide that Harijans could claim that part of worship, which would invade the traditional manner of performing actual worship (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• The Satsangis may be Hindus for cultural and social purposes, but they do not profess Hindu religion (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• Swaminarayan is treated as a God, and worship in the main temple is offered to him pre-eminently. This is said to be inconsistent with Hindu religion (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• No person becomes a Satsangi by birth, only by initiation. Persons of other religions and Harijans can join by initiation (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• Women take diksha from the wife of the Acharya. Five vows are taken: abstinence from drinking, from non-vegetarian diet, from illegal sexual relationship, from theft and from interpollution. Separate arrangements are made for darshan by women. The sect has its own scriptures and appoints its own teachers to worship in the temples (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• For these reasons, the Satsangis are not members of the Hindu community and their temples are not places of public worship within Section 2 of the Act (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).

For the respondents:

• Respondent No. 1 argued before the trial court that the suit was not tenable under Section 5 of the former Act. He said the appellants could not represent the Satsangis. He said many Satsangis favoured Harijan entry, and that the temples were within the Act (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• Respondent No. 1 also argued in the High Court that the reliefs could not stand after the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• The judgment does not record separate arguments of respondents' counsel in the Supreme Court. Counsel for the respondents and the intervener are named only in the appearance note.

Court's Reasoning

The judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. It has no numbered paragraphs, so steps cite the opinion.

Gajendragadkar, C.J. (for the Court)

Background and the vakalatnama objection

1. Noted: The principal question is whether the Bombay High Court was right that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya (sect) is not a distinct religion and that its temples come within the Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry-Authorisation) Act, 1956. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
2. Noted: The Court sets out the history of the suit, the amendments to the plaint, the trial court's findings and the High Court's proceedings, as listed under Procedural History. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
3. Noted: Before the main point, two minor contentions must be disposed of. The first is that the High Court erred in treating respondent No. 1's appeal as competent. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
4. Noted: Order 41, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires an appeal to be in a memorandum signed by the appellant or his Pleader. Order 3, rule 4 says no Pleader acts for a person unless appointed by a signed document filed in court. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
5. Held: Technically the memorandum suffered from an infirmity, as respondent No. 1 signed his vakalatnama in favour of the Government Pleader. Mr. Daundkar could not have accepted it, though he worked in that office. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
6. Held: The Registry accepted the memo and the appeal was admitted. If the Registry had returned it, the irregularity could have been corrected at once. As the Court puts it, "It is an elementary rule of justice that no party should suffer for the mistake of the court or its Office". (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
7. Held: Rule 95 of the High Court's Appellate Side Rules seems to authorise an Advocate to appear without first filing a vakalatnama. An advocate who presents an appeal must produce the vakalatnama or file a statement that it was signed in time. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
8. Held: The vakalatnama had been signed in time. The High Court was plainly right to let the Government Pleader sign the memo and the vakalatnama. The objection to competence fails. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)

Legislative history

1. Noted: The Court gives a brief legislative history, to show the Legislature's sustained efforts against untouchability. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
2. Noted: The Bombay Harijans Temple Worship (Removal of Disabilities) Act (No. 11 of 1938) was a cautious first measure. It created no right of entry. It let trustees declare by majority that their temples were open to Harijans, despite trust terms, dedication, court orders or custom. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
3. Noted: Under that Act, Section 3 dealt with declarations and Section 4 with their publication. Section 5 let interested persons apply to set a declaration aside, and Section 5(5) and (7) governed the court's decision. Section 6 barred civil courts. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
4. Noted: Act No. 10 of 1947 removed social disabilities of Harijans. Section 3 said no Harijan was, merely as a Harijan, ineligible for office or prevented from enjoying specified amenities. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
5. Noted: The former Act, No. 35 of 1947, let Harijans enter and worship in temples in Bombay. Section 2(a) defined a Harijan as a member of a caste, race or tribe deemed a Scheduled Caste under the Government of India (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1936. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
6. Noted: Section 2(b) included Jains in Hindus, and Section 2(c) defined temple. The definition of worship included attendance for darshan of a deity. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
7. Noted: Section 3 of the former Act opened every temple to Harijans, despite trust terms, dedication, sanad, court orders or custom. Section 4 gave penalties, Section 5 excluded civil courts, and Section 6 allowed arrest without warrant by a Sub-Inspector or higher. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
8. Noted: Bombay Act No. 77 of 1948 amended the definition of temple. It became a place used as a place of religious worship by custom, usage or otherwise by the Hindu community or any section of it. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
9. Noted: After the amendment, the appellants amended their plaint. The 1947 Act was the Legislature's next step, giving Harijans the right to enter temples and offer worship. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
10. Noted: Article 17 of the Constitution abolished untouchability and forbade its practice in any form. It made enforcing any disability from untouchability an offence. It afforded full justification for the policy of the former Act. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
11. Noted: The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (No. 22 of 1955) gave effect to Article 17. It covers places of public worship, hotels, places of public entertainment and shops. Section 2(d) defined a place of public worship. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
12. Noted: Sections 3 to 7 of the 1955 Act set punishments. Section 17 repealed twenty-one State Acts, including Bombay Acts 10 of 1947 and 35 of 1947. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
13. Noted: The Bombay Legislature then passed Act No. 31 of 1956, which throws open places of public worship to all classes and sections of Hindus. It has 8 sections. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
14. Noted: Section 2(a) of the 1956 Act defines a place of public worship as a place, temple or otherwise, dedicated to or used generally by Hindus, Jains, Sikhs or Buddhists or any section or class of them. It includes appurtenant land, subsidiary shrines and sacred tanks, wells, springs and watercourses. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
15. Noted: Section 2(b) says section or class of Hindus includes any division, sub-division, caste, sub-caste, sect or denomination. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
16. Noted: Section 3 says every place of public worship open to Hindus generally, or any section, shall be open to all sections and classes of Hindus. No Hindu may be prevented or discouraged from entering, worshipping, praying or performing religious service, in the like manner and extent as other Hindus. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
17. Noted: Section 4(1) gives penalties, and Section 4(2) says it does not relate to offences of practising untouchability. Section 5 deals with abetment. Section 6 bars civil courts from decrees contrary to the Act. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
18. Noted: Section 7 makes the offences cognisable and compoundable with the court's permission. Section 8 says the Act does not derogate from the Untouchability (Offences) Act or other law. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)

Article 26(b) and Section 3

1. Noted: Section 3 throws Hindu temples open to all classes and sections of Hindus. Its object is clear: no discrimination between classes or sections of Hindus in entry and worship. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
2. Noted: Mr. Desai said even Satsangi Hindus may not enter the innermost sacred part. Only Poojaris do actual worship by bathing, dressing and garlanding the idols. He said Section 3 is so wide that Harijans could claim that part. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
3. Noted: Article 26(b) says, subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section has the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
4. Held: The contention is misconceived. The appellants made no such plea in the plaint. Section 3 of the former Act defined worship as including attendance for darshan, and their cause of action was the fear of entry for darshan. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
5. Held: It is not legitimate to raise the new contention only because Section 3 of the 1956 Act is somewhat wider than the earlier section. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
6. Held: On merits, the Legislature did not intend to invade the traditional manner in which actual worship is done only by authorised Poojaris. In many Hindu temples, devotees enter up to a limit and the innermost part is reserved for Poojaris. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
7. Held: Section 3 only gives Harijans the same right to enter for darshan as other Hindus. The right is qualified by the clause that it is enjoyed in the like manner and to the like extent as any other Hindu. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
8. Held: The main object is to establish complete social equality among all sections of Hindus in worship. The appellants' apprehension is misconceived, and there is no substance in the contention that Section 3 is ultra vires. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)

Who are Hindus, and what is Hindu religion

1. Noted: The main controversy is whether the Swaminarayan sect is a religion distinct from Hindu religion. The Court must first ask what the distinctive features of Hindu religion are. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
2. Noted: The question appears prima facie (at first sight) somewhat inappropriate for judicial enquiry. But the issue is justiciable, as the appellants seek relief for their civil rights to manage temples by their religious tenets. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
3. Noted: The problem is secular in character and complex. Its decision depends on social, sociological, historical, religious and philosophical considerations. Hindu religion has grown over nearly 4,000 years. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
4. Noted: The word Hindu is generally accepted to derive from the river Sindhu, or Indus. Monier Williams says the Persians pronounced it Hindu, and the Greeks called the Hindus Indoi. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
5. Noted: The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics describes Hinduism as the form of religion prevailing among most of the population of the Indian Empire. Dr. Radhakrishnan says the civilisation is so called because its founders lived in the Sindhu river system, as recorded in the Rig Veda. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
6. Held: It is difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu religion. Unlike other religions, it claims no one prophet, worships no one God, follows no one dogma, no one philosophic concept and no one set of rites. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
7. Held: It does not satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. In the Court's words, "It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more". (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
8. Noted: Dr. Radhakrishnan asked whether Hinduism is a museum of beliefs or a mere geographical expression. He explained that it absorbed the customs and ideas of peoples it met. The term originally had a territorial, not credal, sense. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
9. Noted: Aboriginal tribes, Dravidians and Vedic Aryans were all Hindus, as sons of the same mother. Hindu thinkers noted that people in India belonged to different communities, worshipped different gods and practised different rites (Kurma Purana). (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
10. Noted: Monier Williams describes Hinduism as a complex congeries of creeds, like the Ganges swollen by tributaries. It is a reflection of the composite character of the Hindus, based on universal receptivity. It has swallowed, digested and assimilated something from all creeds. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
11. Noted: The usual tests for a recognised religion, a body of set philosophic concepts and theological beliefs, are inadequate for Hindu religion. The Court bases itself on Dr. Radhakrishnan's work on Indian Philosophy. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
12. Noted: Philosophy in ancient India held an independent position, not an auxiliary one. The Mundaka Upanishad speaks of Brahmavidya as the basis of all sciences, and Kautilya calls philosophy the lamp of all sciences. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
13. Noted: The history of Indian thought shows an endless quest for truth, on the consciousness that truth has many facets. Truth is one, but wise men describe it differently. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
14. Noted: The Indian mind has been exercised by the nature of godhead, the problem facing the spirit at the end of life, and the relation between the individual and the universal soul. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
15. Noted: The general tendency is monistic idealism, in four forms: non-dualism (Advaita), pure monism, modified monism and implicit monism. All draw on the same Vedic and Upanishadic texts. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
16. Noted: Shankar, Ramanuja, Vallabha and Madhva based their concepts on a synthesis of the Upanishads, the Brahmasutras and the Bhagavad Gita. They varied but all had reverence for the past and accepted the Vedas as the sole foundation of Hindu philosophy. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
17. Noted: Hindu religion realised from the start that truth is many-sided. This bred tolerance. The several views are considered branches of the same tree. There is no scope for excommunicating a notion as heretical. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
18. Noted: Max Muller found behind the six systems a common fund of national or popular philosophy, from which each thinker drew. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
19. Noted: Broad basic concepts lie beneath the diversity. The first is acceptance of the Veda as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters. All systems claim to draw from a common reservoir of thought in the Veda. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
20. Noted: The second basic concept is the great world rhythm, with vast periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution in endless succession. All systems believe in rebirth and pre-existence. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
21. Held: Unlike other religions, Hindu religion is not tied to any definite set of philosophic concepts. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
22. Held: Hindus do not worship the same set or number of gods. Some sections do not worship idols. Idols differ from community to community. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
23. Noted: The Vedic gods were Indra, Varuna, Vayu and Agni. Later Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh were worshipped, then Rama and Krishna. The Hindu pantheon now has a very large number of gods. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
24. Noted: Saints and reformers tried to remove corruption and superstition, and that led to different sects. Buddha started Buddhism, Mahavir Jainism, Basava the Lingayat religion, Dnyaneshwar and Tukaram the Varakari cult, Guru Nanak Sikhism, Dayananda the Arya Samaj, and Chaitanya the Bhakti cult. Ramakrishna and Vivekananda made Hinduism progressive. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
25. Held: Their teachings diverge, but a subtle, indescribable unity keeps them within the sweep of broad and progressive Hindu religion. All revolted against the dominance of rituals and priests, and taught in the languages of the masses, not Sanskrit. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
26. Noted: The ultimate goal of humanity is release from the cycle of births and rebirths. Moksha or Nirvana is the absorption of the individual soul with the infinite. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
27. Noted: The means to this end differ. Some stress Gyan (knowledge), others Bhakti (devotion), others performance of duties with devotion and true knowledge. All agree on the goal. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
28. Held: It is inappropriate to apply traditional tests to decide the extent of Hindu religion. It can be safely described as a way of life based on certain basic concepts. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
29. Noted: Tilak evolved a working formula. It includes Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence, recognition that the ways to salvation are diverse, and the realisation that the number of gods to be worshipped is large. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
30. Noted: Toynbee says Hinduism takes it for granted that there is more than one valid approach to truth and salvation, and that these approaches are complementary. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
31. Noted: The Constitution-makers were conscious of this broad character. Explanation II to Article 25 says that in Article 25(2)(b), the reference to Hindus includes persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
32. Noted: Consistent with this, 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 apply to all who can be regarded as Hindus in this broad sense. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
33. Noted: Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act applies to a Hindu by religion in any of its forms, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj. It also applies to Buddhists, Jainas and Sikhs. It applies to anyone domiciled in its territories who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew, unless shown not to be governed by Hindu law. The same provision is made in the other three Acts. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)

Swaminarayan and his teachings

1. Noted: The crux is whether the followers of the sect fall outside the Hindu brotherhood. The Court relies on Monier Williams's book Religious Thought and Life in India (1883) as a valuable source. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
2. Noted: Swaminarayan was originally called Sahajananda, a high-caste Brahman, born about 1780 at Chapai, 120 miles north-west of Lucknow, to Vaishnava parents. He was disgusted with the licentious habits of the followers of Vallabhacharya, especially the Bombay Maharajas. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
3. Noted: He was a celibate who lived an ascetic but philanthropic life. In 1800 he left home and joined the Guru Ramananda Swami. He followed him to Ahmedabad in 1804 and gathered disciples. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
4. Noted: Orthodox Brahmans persecuted him, and he went to Jetalpur and took the name Swaminarayan. At Wartal he erected a temple to Narayana (Krishna or Vishnu as the Supreme Being) with the goddess Lakshmi, and crusaded against the Vallabhacharya gurus. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
5. Noted: His watchword was devotion to Krishna with observance of duty and purity of life. The two main temples are at Wartal and Ahmedabad. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
6. Noted: About 1826-27 a formal constitution of the sect, the Lekh (Deshvibhaga Lekh), divided India into two dioceses. The northern one has the temple of Nar Narayan at Ahmedabad and the southern one has Lakshminarayan at Wartal. His two nephews, Ayodhyaprasad and Raghuvir, presided over them. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
7. Noted: Two score large temples and over a thousand smaller temples were built subordinate to the principal temples. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
8. Noted: The sect's tenets are in four scriptures. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
   • The Lekh, the constitution of the sect.
   • The Shikshapatri, written about 1826. Shatanandswami rendered it into Sanskrit verses and Nityanand into Gujarati.
   • The Satsangijiwan, written by Shathnand and completed about 1829.
   • The Vachanamrit, a collection of sermons in Gujarati prepared between 1828 and 1830.
9. Noted: Swaminarayan died in 1830. Monier Williams summarised his principles after visiting the Wartal temple with the Collector of Kaira on the Purnima of Karttik and talking with followers. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
10. Noted: The principles include the following. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
    • Killing animals for sacrifice is forbidden, and abstaining from injury is the highest duty.
    • No flesh meat or liquor may be taken.
    • Male followers wear the vertical mark of Vishnu or Krishna on the forehead. Initiated followers wear two rosaries of Tulsi wood.
    • Followers bow before pictures of Radha and Krishna and repeat the eight-syllabled prayer.
    • Duty (Dharma) is good practice enjoined by the Veda and by the law founded on it. Devotion (Bhakti) is intense love for Krishna.
    • Vishnu, Siva, Ganapati, Parvati and the Sun are to be honoured, and Narayana and Siva are equally part of one Supreme Spirit.
    • The philosophical doctrine approved is the Visishtadvaita of Ramanuja, and salvation is union with Krishna in Goloka.
    • The twice-born perform the twelve purification rites, the six daily duties and Sradha offerings.
    • Wives make only a circular mark of red powder or saffron. Every day followers go to the temple of God and repeat the names of Krishna.
    • Narayana and Siva are forms of Brahma, and difference in form or name makes no difference in the identity of the deity.
    • Pilgrimage, almsgiving and a tithe of income for Krishna are enjoined, with a twentieth for the poor.
    • Those who obey obtain the four great objects of desire: religious merit, wealth, pleasure and beatitude.
11. Noted: The Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency summarises the Shikshapatri. It prohibits destruction of animal life, promiscuous intercourse, animal food, intoxicants, suicide, theft, false accusation, blasphemy, eating with low caste people, caste pollution and the company of atheists and heretics. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
12. Noted: The Gazetteer describes initiation. The novice offers a palmful of water at the feet of the Acharya, saying he gives over his mind, body, wealth and sins to Swami Sahajanand. He receives the sacred formula Sri Krishnastwam gatirmama, and pays at least half a rupee. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
13. Noted: Sometimes the Acharya delegates authority to admit candidates and gives them the Panch Vartaman, forbidding lying, theft, adultery, intoxication and animal food. A perfect disciple can be made only after receiving the final formula from one of the two Acharyas. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
14. Noted: The disciple then makes a vertical streak of Gopichandan clay or sandal on the forehead, with a round red powder mark, and wears a necklet of sweet basil beads. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)

Whether the sect is a distinct religion

1. Held: The plea that the Satsangis form a separate community with a separate religion is entirely misconceived. Swaminarayan followed Ramanuja. The essence of his teaching is that every individual should follow the main Vedic injunctions of a good, pious and religious life and seek salvation by devotion to Lord Krishna. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
2. Noted: The essence of initiation is giving the secret mantra: Lord Krishna, thou art my refuge, Lord Krishna, I dedicate myself to thee. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
3. Held: Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence, recognition that Bhakti leads to Moksha, and devotion to Lord Krishna show unambiguously that Swaminarayan was a Hindu saint. He wanted to remove corrupt practices among the followers of Vallabhacharya and restore Hindu religion to its glory and purity. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
4. Held: History will accord him a place of honour among the Hindu saints and reformers who have kept Hindu religion alive, youthful and vigorous. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
5. Noted: The appellants urged features of the sect. These are that no one is a Satsangi by birth, only by initiation, and that persons of other religions and Harijans can join. Swaminarayan himself is treated as God and worshipped pre-eminently in the main temple. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
6. Noted: They also cited that women take diksha from the Acharya's wife, five vows are taken, separate darshan arrangements exist for women, and special scriptures and teachers are used. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
7. Held: The Court is not impressed. Whenever a saint or reformer tried to reform Hindu religion, a sect was born with its own tenets but basically subscribing to the fundamental notions of Hindu religion and philosophy. It has never been suggested that such sects are outside the Hindu brotherhood. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
8. Held: Worship of Swaminarayan himself is not inconsistent with the belief created in Hindu minds by the Bhagavad Gita. Whenever religion declines and irreligion rises, God is born to restore the balance (Gita 4.7). The birth of every saint and reformer illustrates this, and in time saints are honoured with divinity. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
9. Held: None of the reasons relied on by Mr. Desai shows that the High Court's view is wrong. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
10. Noted: The sect gives diksha to followers of other religions, who become Satsangis without losing their own religions. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
11. Held: This shows only that the Satsang philosophy lets followers of other religions receive the blessings of its teachings without giving up their own religions. Not insisting on proselytising is not relevant to whether the sect is Hindu. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
12. Held: In a sense this attitude fits the basic Hindu idea that "many roads lead to God". The Court cites the Bhagavad Gita (9.23): those who worship other gods as their religion prescribes ultimately worship the Lord. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
13. Held: The Court has no hesitation in holding that "the Swaminarayan sect to which the appellants belong is not a religion distinct and separate from Hindu religion". So the temples of the sect fall within the ambit of Section 2 of the Act. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)

Concluding observations

1. Noted: The suit began in 1948 from the appellants' apprehension that the proclaimed entry of non-Satsangi Harijans would be a violent trespass on their tenets. If Harijans entered quietly, it would be difficult to bar them. Respondent No. 1 announced their entry publicly, so the appellants came to court. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
2. Held: The apprehension was genuine. But it is founded on superstition, ignorance and complete misunderstanding of the true teachings of Hindu religion and of Swaminarayan himself. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
3. Noted: While the litigation went on, the Constitution came into force on 26 January 1950. The social and religious outlook of the Hindu community has changed fundamentally under the message of social equality and justice. The promise in Article 17 has been enforced gradually but irresistibly. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
4. Held: So the controversy has today become a matter of mere academic interest. The Court feels confident that its view will receive approval even from the conservative elements of the Satsang community. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
5. Held: The right to enter temples given to Harijans by the Act symbolises their right to enjoy all social amenities and rights. As the Court puts it, "social justice is the main foundation of the democratic way of life". (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)
6. Held: The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. (Gajendragadkar, C.J.)

Authorities

The judgment cites no decided cases. It relies on the following books and texts. The title of this case appears in the source as Sastri Yagnapurushadji And Others v. Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And Another.

• Monier Williams, Hinduism (p. 1) and Religious Thought and Life in India (1883; pp. 1, 57 and 155-58): origin of the word Hindu, Hinduism as a congeries of creeds, and the life and principles of Swaminarayan (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. VI (p. 686): description of Hinduism (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• Dr. Radhakrishnan, The Hindu View of Life (pp. 11-12) and Indian Philosophy, Vols. I and II (pp. 22-23, 32 and 48 of Vol. I): the origin of the word Hindu, and Hindu philosophy (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• Max Muller, Six Systems of Indian Philosophy (p. xvii): a common fund of thought behind the six systems (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• B.G. Tilak, Gitarahasya: the working formula for Hindu religion (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• Toynbee, The Present-Day Experiment in Western Civilisation (pp. 48-49): Hinduism accepts more than one approach to truth (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. IX, Part 1, Gujarat Population, 1901 (pp. 537-39): the Shikshapatri and the ceremony of initiation (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
• Other texts referred to: the Rig Veda; the Kurma Purana; the Mundaka Upanishad; Kautilya on philosophy; the Bhagavad Gita, 4.7 and 9.23; and the four scriptures of the sect: the Lekh, the Shikshapatri, the Satsangijiwan and the Vachanamrit (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).

Provisions mentioned

• Article 17, Constitution: abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice; enforcing a disability from it is an offence.
• Article 25(2)(b) and Explanation II, Constitution: the State may throw open Hindu religious institutions to all classes; Hindus include Sikhs, Jainas and Buddhists.
• Article 26(b), Constitution: every religious denomination or section may manage its own affairs in matters of religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
• Sections 2 and 3, Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry-Authorisation) Act, 1956 (No. 31 of 1956): definitions, and the operative provision opening places of public worship to all Hindus.
• Sections 4 to 8 of the same Act: penalties, abetment, bar on civil courts, cognisable and compoundable offences, and savings.
• Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947 (No. 35 of 1947), and Bombay Act No. 77 of 1948: definitions of Harijan, Hindus, temple and worship; the entry right; penalties; bar on civil courts; arrest.
• Sections 3 to 6, Bombay Harijans Temple Worship (Removal of Disabilities) Act (No. 11 of 1938): declaration by trustees, publication, applications to set aside (Sections 5(5) and 5(7)), and bar on civil courts.
• Section 3, Act No. 10 of 1947: removal of social disabilities of Harijans.
• Sections 2(a) to (e), 3 to 7 and 17, Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (No. 22 of 1955): definitions, punishments, and repeal of twenty-one State Acts.
• Order 41, rule 1; Order 3, rule 4(1) and (2); and Order 27A, Code of Civil Procedure; rule 95, Appellate Side Rules of the Bombay High Court: the appeal memorandum, the appointment of a Pleader, notice to the Advocate-General, and appearance without an initial vakalatnama.
• Section 2, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: apply to Hindus in the broad sense.
• Government of India (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1936: used to define a Harijan in the former Act.

Judgement

1. The appeal is dismissed with costs (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
2. The appeal to the High Court by respondent No. 1 was competent. The vakalatnama irregularity was rightly cured (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
3. Section 3 of the 1956 Act is not ultra vires and does not contravene Article 26(b) (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
4. The Swaminarayan sect is not a religion distinct and separate from Hindu religion. Its temples fall within the ambit of the Act (Gajendragadkar, C.J.).
5. The judgment records no amount of costs.

Legal Principle / Ratio

Hindu religion cannot be defined by the tests used for other religions. It is a way of life, with acceptance of the Vedas, diverse paths to salvation and many gods as its broad features. A sect that arose from a Hindu reformer, follows the Vedas and centres on devotion to Krishna is a Hindu sect, even if it initiates outsiders and worships its founder. In the Court's words: "the Swaminarayan sect to which the appellants belong is not a religion distinct and separate from Hindu religion".

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

The Court describes rather than defines Hindu religion. It says it is difficult, if not impossible, to define it. It offers a way of life resting on basic concepts and Tilak's working formula. The judgment does not say how many of those features a sect must show to count as Hindu.

The Court says the issue is hard for a court to decide. It calls the enquiry prima facie inappropriate for judicial enquiry, but holds the issue justiciable because civil rights are claimed. Its answer draws heavily on scholars and on a Gazetteer, and it notes that the appellants described themselves as Hindus in their plaint.

The Court says the controversy has become academic. After the Constitution and Article 17, it calls the dispute today a matter of mere academic interest. So the result rests both on the meaning of Hindu religion and on the wider constitutional change the Court describes.

Significance

• The Court held that the Swaminarayan sect is a Hindu sect, so its temples must be open to Harijans under Section 3 of the 1956 Act.
• It gave a working description of Hindu religion as a way of life, resting on the Vedas, diverse paths and many gods.
• It held that a sect formed by a saint's reform is within the Hindu brotherhood, and that worship of the founder does not take it out.
• It read Section 3 as giving Harijans only the same right of darshan as other Hindus, and not the right to enter the innermost sanctuary reserved for Poojaris.
• It tied the outcome to social equality and the abolition of untouchability under Article 17.

Exam-Important Points

• Facts in one line: Satsangis sued to keep non-Satsangi Harijans out of Swaminarayan temples. They said the sect was a distinct religion. The High Court dismissed the suit and the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal.
• Rule: Hindu religion may broadly be described as a way of life. It has no one prophet, God, dogma, philosophy or ritual.
• Basic concepts: acceptance of the Veda as the highest authority, and the great world rhythm with rebirth.
• Trap: initiation by outsiders, worship of the founder and a special sect-based discipline did not make the sect non-Hindu.
• Trap: Section 3 gives Harijans the same right of darshan as other Hindus. It does not give access to the innermost part reserved for Poojaris.
• Procedural point: an appeal signed by an Assistant Government Pleader on a vakalatnama for the Government Pleader was cured. No party should suffer for the court's or Registry's mistake.
• Bench: five Judges, judgment by Gajendragadkar, C.J. Costs: appeal dismissed with costs.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. Paragraph numbers follow the official Supreme Court judgment text; law reports may number the same paragraph differently.