CASE COMMENTARY

Sastri Yagnapurushadji and others - APPELLANT

VERSUS

Muldas Brudardas Vaishya and another- RESPONDENTS

AIR 1966 SC 1119

Date of Decision: 14.01.1966

BENCH:
GAJENDRAGADKAR P.B. (CJ)
K.M. WANCHOO (J)
M. HIDAYATULLAH (J)
V. RAMASWAMI (J)
P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU (J)

INTRODUCTION-
Innumerable years of shadows, but no longer, the 1966 judgment delineated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India lighted up the darkness.
From having no creedal connotation, before the advent of Muslims to having a
territorial significance, probably denoting nationality, it seems the word “Hindu”
came into vogue because of Greeks. Clasping the codification of Hindu law under
scrutiny and glancing forward we reached a stage when it was easier to indicate a
Hindu negatively: a person who was not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew was a
Hindu, as the term in 1955-1956 hadn’t been defined strictly in terms of religion, this
trailblazer verdict pronounced by the Honourable Court of law is a milestone lawsuit
that ushered the vanguard elucidating essentially in religious context. Till date the true
meaning hasn’t been perspicuously voiced.
CASE FACTS-
1. The Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947 1 (Hereinafter ‘The Former Act’)
came into force on 23rd Nov., 1947.
1
The Bombay Harijans Temple Worship (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1958.
2. The appellants known as Satsangi’s were followers of the Swaminarayana sect.
They tabulated the lawsuit on behalf of Satsangi’s of Northern Diocese.
3. Apprehending the respondent, President of the Maha Gujarat Dalit Sangh,
envisaging assertion of prerogatives of non-Satsangi Harijans exercising the
entitlements endowed on them.
4. Asking for the injunction restraining the non-Satsangi Harijans from setting foot in
holy place of Northern Diocese of the Sect.
5. Pleading the declaration of the pertinent sections of the Act, revised by Act 77
didn’t appertain to their holy places and were ultra vires.
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED:
1. If the High Court was just deciding the sect as not discrete and unconnected from
Hinduism?
2. Whether the worship places affiliated with the sect came within the scope of the
Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship Act (Entry Authorisation) Act, 1956?
3. Definition of Hinduism and who is Hindu.
ARGUMENTS-
The appellants rested their case on Swaminarayan considering himself to be
cardinal divinity and any sect believing in his holiness can’t be comprehended as
Hinduism’s followers. Establishment of the temples in the suit was for
worshipping the cardinal divinity and not for idol worship. Praying to any
divinity differing than Swaminarayan is counted as betrayal. The Acharyas
embraced a “Initiation” procedure.
The suit was resisted by urging that the suit filed was not tenable. Where many were
in favour of the Harijans’ entry, it was contended that the Swaminarayana Temples
came under the comprehension of the previous act as revised and the non-Satsangi
Harijans had a right to step in and pray.

JUDGEMENT-

The Trial Court and the High Court adjudged that the sect is in no way unconnected
from Hindu religion. The Judicature looked into the distinctive features of Hinduism.
Discerning the task to describe the religion is laborious, the judicature defined it as a
way of life. Restating Dr Radhakrishnan’s words, the judicature found an eminent
attribute of Hindu credo i.e., monistic idealism. Albeit, there exist certain theories
which can be acknowledged as foundational to the religion such as the undertaking of
Vedas as the supreme command, the undertaking of the theory of the great world
rhythm, and believe in rebirth and pre-existence.

Particular divisions of the community don’t believe in idol worship, and as regards
those divisions which rely on the same, the idols vary from section to section. The
Hindu pantheon a large spectrum of deities. If the lessons of ascetics are looked into,
one would comprehend that under the varying views there is a thin thread weaving
them within the Hindu religion. The terminal objective of the religion and credo
is Moksha  or Nirvana. The Court relied on the definition of Hinduism stated by
Balgangadhar Tilak.

The Judicature found the plea of the appellants to be wholly miscontrued. An acolyte
of Ramanuja, the quintessence of Swaminarayan’s lessons was that people should
follow the core Vedic dictums of a lord, pure, and theocratic life and should try to
attain Moksha by devoting to Lord Krishna. Worship of Swaminarayan in temples is
consistent with the credence of Hinduism. Satsang credo allows acolytes of different
theocracies to obtain the benediction of Swaminarayan’s lessons. The fact that the
sect doesn’t emphasize on the real exercise of proselytising on such instances is
irrelevant in concluding whether the sect is Hindu or not. Therefore, Swaminaryan
sect is a religion connected to Hindu religion and the temples affiliating to the said
sect fall within the scope of Section 2 of the Bombay Harijans Temple Worship
(Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1958.

ANALYSIS-
The Supreme Court, with the view of elaborating the meaning of the “Hindu
religion”, Gajendragadhkar J. drew copiously and freely from the works of eminent
scholars and writers of Hindu religion and philosophy.

The learned Judge, beheld that even a perfunctory learning of the vanguard of the
religion through epochs show that whenever an ascetic tried the work of reforming
Hindu religion and fought the under-head applications which crawlled into it, a
sampradaya germinated which was ruled by its own dogma, but which supported the
rudimentary notions of Hindu theocracy, the Hindu credo. These sects aren’t outside
the Hindu comradeship and the temples they respect aren’t Hindu temples. The same
was held true of the Swaminarayana sect.
Undoubtedly, a person who passes the test of Hinduness as laid down by the Supreme
Court is a Hindu, but it cannot be said that a person who does not pass the test is not a
Hindu. Similarly, a person doesn’t terminate to be a Hindu if he embellishes into an
atheist or deviates from the core principles of the Hindu religion, or dereliction from
rudimentary religious applications, or embraces Western mode of living.

CONCLUSION-
Hinduism is a religion of Hindu’s in all their forms whether a person may follow it
with full heart or not.