GOVIND DAS Vs. BISHAMBHAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an action for libel brought by the plaintiff in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares, where the parties reside and carry on business. Both belong to the Agarwala Vaishya caste of Hindus, and both appear to occupy an influential position in their community.

(2.) The Agarwalas of Benares are divided into two Tars or sections, one called the Purbia or Eastern, the other Pachhain or Western; but in doctrinal matters and caste observances there seems to be no difference between them. The inter- communal government of each section is vested in a panchayat composed of the general body of its members, which, so far as appears on the record, has authority to enforce the due observance of the caste rules, In this connection it should be mentioned that there are numbers of Agarwalas in the neighbouring towns of Mirzapur and Chunar with whom the Benares Agarwalas maintain close social relations.

(3.) The proceedings in this case show that many of the Agarwalas of Benares take a much stricter view of the doctrines of their religion than most of their fellow castemen, especially in Western India; and in no respect is the difference more pronounced than on the question of a sea voyage undertaken by a Hindu. Whilst other Hindus, including Agarwalas, bold that a purification ceremony technically called prayaschitta absolves the sin incurred by a voyage across the seas, the Benares Agarwala holds firmly to the doctrine that the taint the offender contracts is beyond absolution. In recent years, however, a strong body of public opinion has been growing up which considers this extreme view to be not only illiberal and opposed to the spirit of the times, but also as unwarranted by the Shastras. The plaintiff seems to be the protagonist of this school of thought. The controversy between what may be called for the purposes of this judgement the orthodox section, and the comparatively smaller body of reformers assumed an acute character with the return to India in May, 1910, of one Babu Lakshmi Chand, also an Agarwala belonging to the Western section. He appears to have been sent to England as a Government scholar, and to have had in this country a meritorious career. On his arrival, however, at home he was promptly put out of the caste by the panchayat of his section. His academical distinctions in England were appreciated by the advanced and liberal-minded people of his community, who received him with marks of esteem and respect; and after he had gone through the prayasohitta ceremony they gave a dinner in his honour, at which several of the younger members of the plaintiff s family are said to have been present. This seems to have offended the religious feelings of the orthodox; a chittha, or "declaration of faith," was drawn up, it is said, at the instance of the defendant (whose position in the panchayat will be explained later on) and circulated for signature among the members of the caste. It is alleged by the defence, but denied by the plaintiff, that this document was presented to him, and that he declined to attach his name to it. On his side, he issued to his caste-people and others a public appeal, in which he pleaded for toleration and a more liberal interpretation of the religious doctrines of the sect. In this leaflet he also gave expression to certain strictures on other members of the caste, apparently to show the inconsistency of their attitude towards moral delinquency. This was regarded by a majority of the caste-people as implying a reflection on them and they decided on holding a meeting of the panchayat to consider the matter in relation to the plaintiff and his brother Bhagwan Das. The meeting was accordingly held on the 19th of June, 1910; whether it was convened in accordance with the rules of the panchayat and whether plaintiff had notice of the meeting will be discussed shortly. The sitting of the panchayat is said to have lasted from eight in the evening until next morning, so the debate must have been prolonged, and it may fairly be presumed that persons interested in the proceedings had ample opportunity to put in an appearance. Finally, as the plaintiff was in Calcutta and could not attend, and his brother Bhagwan Das did not or would not do so, the panchayat passed a resolution, the publication of which forms the libel charged against the defendant in this action.