Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 91 views

    Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry Authorisations Act (31 of 1956)

    Uploaded by

    Manaswi Kosuri
    The case involved a dispute over whether non-Satsangi Harijans (Dalits) could enter temples belonging to the Swaminarayan sect. The appellants, who were followers of the sect, filed suit seeking a declaration that provisions of earlier Acts allowing temple entry did not apply to their temples. The trial court initially ruled in their favor. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the suit, finding that the sect practiced Hinduism. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that: [1] The sect's religion was distinct from Hinduism, so temples fell outside scope of Acts; [2] Provisions allowing entry violated constitutional right to manage religious affairs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry Authorisations Act (31 of 1956)

    Uploaded by

    Manaswi Kosuri
    91 views4 pages
    The case involved a dispute over whether non-Satsangi Harijans (Dalits) could enter temples belonging to the Swaminarayan sect. The appellants, who were followers of the sect, filed suit seeking a declaration that provisions of earlier Acts allowing temple entry did not apply to their temples. The trial court initially ruled in their favor. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the suit, finding that the sect practiced Hinduism. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that: [1] The sect's religion was distinct from Hinduism, so temples fell outside scope of Acts; [2] Provisions allowing entry violated constitutional right to manage religious affairs.

    Original Description:

    blong

    Original Title

    bling

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a dispute over whether non-Satsangi Harijans (Dalits) could enter temples belonging to the Swaminarayan sect. The appellants, who were followers of the sect, filed suit seeking a declaration that provisions of earlier Acts allowing temple entry did not apply to their temples. The trial court initially ruled in their favor. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the suit, finding that the sect practiced Hinduism. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that: [1] The sect's religion was distinct from Hinduism, so temples fell outside scope of Acts; [2] Provisions allowing entry violated constitutional right to manage religious affairs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    91 views4 pages

    Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry Authorisations Act (31 of 1956)

    Uploaded by

    Manaswi Kosuri
    The case involved a dispute over whether non-Satsangi Harijans (Dalits) could enter temples belonging to the Swaminarayan sect. The appellants, who were followers of the sect, filed suit seeking a declaration that provisions of earlier Acts allowing temple entry did not apply to their temples. The trial court initially ruled in their favor. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the suit, finding that the sect practiced Hinduism. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that: [1] The sect's religion was distinct from Hinduism, so temples fell outside scope of Acts; [2] Provisions allowing entry violated constitutional right to manage religious affairs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    SASTRI YAGNAPURUSHADJI AND Anr VS MULDAS BRUDARDAS VAISHYA AND Anr

    COURT : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    CASE NAME : SASTRI YAGNAPURUSHADJI AND Anr VS MULDAS


    BRUDARDAS VAISHYA AND Anr

    CITATION : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 517 OF 1964

    BENCH : GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ), WANCHOO, K.N.,


    HIDAYATULLAH, M., RAMASWAMI, V., SATYANARAYANARAJU, P.

    AUTHOR : P GAJENDRAGADKAR

    DELIVERD ON : 14/01/1966

    RELAVENT ACTS : BOMBAY HINDU PLACES OF PUBLIC WORSHIP (ENTRY


    AUTHORISATIONS ACT (31 OF 1956)

    HEAD NOTE
    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 to that sect
    did not fall within the ambit of the 1956 Act.

    FACTS OF THE CASE


    The suit from 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) ('the former Act') had come into force on the 23rd
    November, 1947. The appellants were the followers of the Swaminarayan sect, and are known as
    Satsangis. They filed a 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.
    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 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 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.
    In the judgment pronounced on 24TH September, 1951 The learned trial Judge, 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
    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. As the result, the trial court passed a decree in favour of the appellants giving them
    declarations and injunctions as claimed by them.
    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 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.
    As 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 the supreme court.

    APPELLANTS CONTENTION

    i) 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 temples and do the actual worship of the idols by touching the idols
    for the purpose of giving a bath to the idols, 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.
    The Swaminarayan sect is a religion distinct and separate from the Hindu religion,
    and consequently, the temples belonging to the said sect do not fall within the ambit of s. 3
    of the Act.

    You might also like