SHASTRI YAGNAPURUSHDASJI THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MULDAS BHUNDARDAS VAISHYA:MULDAS BHUNDARDAS VAISHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J:- The Principal question which arises in 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 12-1-1948, 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) (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 Bhundardas Vaishya, who is the President of the Maha Gujarat Dalit Singh 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 Section 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.