TITLE OF ASSIGNMENT: SASTRI YAGNAPURUSHADJI AND

OTHERS
v. MULDAS BRUDARDAS VAISHYA AND ANOTHER (AIR 1966
SC 119)

BY: JANEES RAFIQ SUBMITTED TO:

REGISTRATION NUMBER: 11800151 MR SUNIL KUMAR
ROLL NUMBER: 01
CLASS: 3RD SEMESTER, 2ND YEAR (BA-LLB Hons’)
SECTION: L1801
DATE OF ALLOTMENT: 14TH AUGUST, 2019
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 26TH AUGUST, 2019
 Sastri Yagnapurushadji and others v. Muldas Brudardas Vaishya and another
(AIR 1966 SC 119)

Court Supreme Court of India

Full name of case Sastri Yagnapurushadji and others v.

Muldas Brudardas Vaishya and another
(AIR 1966 SC 119)1
Petitioner Sastri Yagnapurushadji and others.

Respondent Muldas Brudardas Vaishya and another.

Decided 14/01/1966

Bench Gajendragadkar (CJ)

Laws applied Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship

(Entry- Authorisation) Act, 1956 (No. 31
of 1956)2
The Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act,
19473.
The Bombay Harijans Temple Worship
(Removal of Disabilities) Act, 19584.

1 Sastri Yagnapurushadji and others v. Muldas Brudardas Vaishya and another, AIR 1966 SC 119 available at:
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=shastri%20yagnapurushdasji%20v%20muldas (Last visited on 19 th
August, 2019).
2 The Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship Act (Entry Authorisation) Act, 1956.
3 The Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947
4 The Bombay Harijans Temple Worship (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1958
 1. INTRODUCTION:5
Before the advent of Muslims in India, the term “Hindu” had no creedal connotation. Then it had
a territorial significance; probably it also denoted nationality. It seems like word “Hindu” came
into vogue with the advent of Greeks who called the inhabitants of the Indus valley as “indoi”
and later on this designation was extended to include all persons who lived beyond the Indus
valley. Today, the term ‘Hindu’ has no territorial significance nor is it a designation of
nationality. Today, it has lost much of its creedal significance.
It is very significant that the term “Hindu” even before the codification of branches of Hindu law
in 1955-56 had not been defined strictly in terms of religion. Before 1955, a person who was a
Hindu by religion was certainly a Hindu but the converse wasn’t true. There were persons who
could hardly be called as Hindu’s by religion but Hindu law did apply to them; and since the
Hindu Law applied to them, they were called as Hindu’s. At the time of codification of Hindu
law, 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. It was in respect of religious endowments that the
definition of Hindu in terms of religion was of some significance.
Till this day, there has been found no precise definition of the term “Hindu”. Attempts have been
made by various thinkers like Shashi Tharoor, Tilak, Veer Savarkar, Gandhi, Carvaka etc to
define the term Hindu. But no definition seems to absorb in it all the aspects of Hinduism.
The Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19556 states the certain category of people who may or
may not fall under the definition of term “Hindu”. Hindu’s are caterogized under following
major groups:
1. Hindus by Religion
2. Hindus by Birth
3. Followers of Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism
4. Converts and Reconverts to Hinduism
5. Any person who’s not a Muslim, Christian, Jew or Parsi is a Hindu for the application of
Hindu Laws.
A very bold attempt to define the term “Hindu” in terms of religion was made by Gajendragadkar
CJ in the case of Sastri v. Muldas though the elucidation was made in an essentially religious
context.

5 Dr Paras Diwan and Peeyushi Diwan, Modern Hindu Law (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, Haryana, 24th edn.
2019).
6 The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
 2. FACTS OF THE CASE7:
1. The Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 19478 (Herein after called as ‘The Former
Act’) had come into force on 23rd Nov., 1947.
2. The appellants were the followers of the Swaminarayana sect, and are known as
Satsangi’s.
3. They had filed the suit on behalf of themselves and on behalf of Satsangi’s of
Northern Diocese of the sect at Ahmedabad.
4. They apprehended that Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya (respondent), who was the
President of the Maha Gujarat Dalit Sangh at Ahmedabad, intended to assert the
rights of non-Satsangi Harijans to enter the temples of the Swaminarayana sect
situated in the Northern Diocese at Ahmedabad in the exercise of legal rights
conferred on them by the Former Act, 1947 as the 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 extend as to other Hindus in general.
5. The appellants filed a suit against the respondents and asked for the injunction
restraining the respondent and other non-Satsangi Harijans from entering the
Swaminarayana temple of Northern Diocese of the Swaminarayana Sect.
6. The also filed a suit for a declaration that the relevant provisions of the Bombay
Harijan Temple Entry Act, 19479, as amended by Act 77 of 1948 did not apply to their
temples as the Swaminarayana sect was a distinct sect and different from Hindu
religion and hence the relevant provision of the above mentioned Act were ultra vires.

3. LEGAL ISSUES RAISED10:

1. Whether the Bombay High Court was right in holding that the Swaminarayan
Sampradaya sect to which the appellants belonged is not a religion distinct and
separate from the Hindu religion?
2. Whether the temples belonging to the said sect do come within the ambit of the
provisions of the Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship Act (Entry
Authorisation) Act, 195611?
3. Who is a Hindu and what is Hinduism?
4. CONTENTIONS/ LEADING ARGUMENTS12:
4.1. By appellant:

7 Sastri Yagnapurushadji and others v. Muldas Brudardas Vaishya and another, AIR 1966 SC 119 available at:
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=shastri%20yagnapurushdasji%20v%20muldas (Last visited on 19 th
August, 2019).
8 The Bombay Harijans Temple Worship (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1958.
9 Ibid
10 Sastri Yagnapurushadji and others v. Muldas Brudardas Vaishya and another, AIR 1966 SC 119 available at:
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=shastri%20yagnapurushdasji%20v%20muldas (Last visited on 19 th
August, 2019).
11 The Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship Act (Entry Authorisation) Act, 1956.
  The appellants took a plea that their temples were not the temples within the
meaning of the Former Act as amended by the act of 1948. They urged that the act
was ultra-vires as it was inconsistent with the Constitution and the fundamental
rights guaranteed by therein.
 In addition to this, it was contended by them that the Swaminarayana Sect was an
institution distinct and different from Hindu religion and therefore, the Former
Act as amended did not apply to or affect the temples of their sect.
 Also, the appellants supported the original claim for declarations and injunctions
made by them in their plaint as it was originally filed.
4.2. By respondent:
 The suit was resisted by the respondents and it was urged on their behalf that the
suit filed by the appellants was not tenable and also disputed the appellants’ right
to represent the Satsangis of the Swaminarayana sect.
 It was also contended that many Satsangis were in favour of the Harijans’ entry
into the Swaminarayana temples, even though such Harijans were not the
followers of the Swaminarayana Sect.
 Further, it was contended by the respondents that the Swaminarayana Temples
were the temples within the meaning of the Former Act as amended and the non-
Satsangi Harijans had a right of entry and worship in the said temples.
 The appellant’s contention that the Former act as amended was ultra-vires of the
constitution was also challenged by the respondents.

5. JUDGEMENT13:

Before this case came to the Supreme Court, both the Trial Court and the Bombay High Court
had held that Swaminarayan sect is not a religious sect separate from Hinduism. The case of the
appellants rested on four main arguments. First, Swaminarayan considered himself to be supreme
God and as such any sect that believes in the divinity of Swaminarayan cannot be assimilated
with the followers of Hinduism. Second, temples in suit had been established for the worship of
Swaminarayan himself and not for the worship of traditional Hindu idols, thus showing that
the Satsangis were a separate religious sect. Third, the sect propagated the ideal that the worship
of any God other than Swaminarayan would be a betrayal of his faith. Fourth, the Acharyas
adopted a procedure of “Initiation” which showed that on initiation, the devotee became
a Satsangi and assumed a separate and distinct character as a follower of the sect.

12 Sastri Yagnapurushadji and others v. Muldas Brudardas Vaishya and another, AIR 1966 SC 119 available at:
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=shastri%20yagnapurushdasji%20v%20muldas (Last visited on 19 th
August, 2019).
13 Ibid.
To examine the contention of the appellants, the Court looked into the distinctive features of
Hindu religion. Observing that it is difficult, if not impossible to define Hindu religion or
adequately describe it, the Court described Hindu religion as a way of life. Quoting Dr
Radhakrishnan, the Court found monistic idealism to be a distinguishing feature of Hindu
philosophy. However, there are certain broad concepts which can be treated as basic to Hindu
religion. One of them is the acceptance of the Vedas as the highest authority in religious and
philosophical matters. Another would be the acceptance of the concept of the great world
rhythm. Also, belief in rebirth and pre-existence is another such basic concept.

There are certain sections of the Hindu community which do not believe in the worship of idols,
and as regards those sections which believe in it, their idols differ from community to
community. The Hindu pantheon presents the spectacle of a very large number of Gods who are
worshipped by different sections of the Hindus. From time to time saints and religious reformers
attempted to remove from the Hindu thought and practices elements of corruption and
superstition that led to the formation of different sects. If the teachings of these saints and
reformers are studied, one would realize that beneath the diversion in their views there is a subtle
kind of unity which keeps them within the sweep of Hindu religion.

The ultimate aim of Hindu religion and philosophy is Moksha or Nirvana, which represents the
state of absolute absorption of the individual soul with the infinite. There is a great divergence of
views on how to achieve this Moksha or Nirvana. Therefore Hinduism can safely be described as
a way of life based on certain basic concepts. The Court mentioned the definition of Hinduism as
given by Balgangadhar Tilak and observed the same as adequate and satisfactory.

Tilak said: “Acceptance of Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways
to salvation are diverse and realization of the truth that the number of Gods to be worshipped is
large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of Hindu religion.”

After an analysis of the life of Swaminarayan and his teachings, the Court found the plea of the
appellants to be entirely misconceived. Swaminarayan was a follower of Ramanuja, and the
essence of his teachings was that everyone should follow the main Vedic injunctions of a god,
pious, and religious life and should attempt to attain salvation by the path of devotion to Lord
Krishna. Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence, recognition of the fact that the path
of Bhakti or devotion leads to Moksha, and insistence on devotion of Lord Krishna
unambiguously and unequivocally proclaim that Swaminarayan was a Hindu saint determined to
remove corrupt practices from Hindu religion and to restore it to its original glory and purity.
Whenever a saint or a religious reformer attempted to reform Hindu religion, a sect was born
which was governed by its own tenets, but which basically subscribed to the fundamental notions
of Hindu religion and Hindu philosophy. Worship of Swaminarayan in temples is not inconsistent
with the beliefs of Hindu religion. Saints are honoured because the presence of divinity in their
lives places them on the high pedestal of divinity itself. Satsang philosophy allows followers of
other religions to receive the blessings of Swaminarayan’s teachings without insisting upon
forsaking their own religions. The fact that the sect does not insist upon the actual process of
proselytising on such occasions has no relevance in deciding whether the sect itself is a Hindu
sect or not.

HELD14:-

Swaminaryan sect is not a religion separate and distinct from Hindu religion and the temples
belonging to the said sect do fall within the ambit of Section 2 of the Bombay Harijans Temple
Worship (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 195815. Hindu religion is a way of life.

6. REASONING BEHNIND THE JUDGEMENT16:

In 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.
His Lordship observed: “Beneath the diversity of philosophical thoughts, concepts and ideas
expressed by the Hindu philosophers who started different philosophical schools, lie certain
concepts which can be treated as basic. The first amongst these basic concepts is the acceptance
of the Vedas as the highest authority in religious and philosophical matters. This concept
necessarily implies that all the systems claim to have drawn their principles from a common
reservoir of thought enshrined in Vedas. The other basic concept which is common to six systems
of Hindu philosophy is that all of them accept view of the great world rhythm, vast periods of
creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession. It may also be
said that all the systems of Hindu philosophy believe in rebirth and pre-existence.”

14 Sastri Yagnapurushadji and others v. Muldas Brudardas Vaishya and another, AIR 1966 SC 119 available at:
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=shastri%20yagnapurushdasji%20v%20muldas (Last visited on 19 th
August, 2019).
15 The Bombay Harijans Temple Worship (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1958.
16 Dr Paras Diwan and Peeyushi Diwan, Modern Hindu Law (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, Haryana, 24th edn.
2019).
The learned Judge, after examining the basic tenet of the Swaminarayan sect, observed that even
a cursory study of the growth and development of the Hindu religion through ages shows that
whenever a saint or religious reformer attempted the task of reforming Hindu religion and fought
the irrational or corrupt practices which crept into it, a sect was born which was governed by its
own tenets, but which basically subscribed to the fundamental notions of Hindu religion, the
Hindu philosophy. It has never been suggested that these sects are outside the Hindu brotherhood
and the temples they honour are not 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. Therefore, a
person who has a faith in Hindu religion and who practices or professes it, is a Hindu. But a
person does not cease to be a Hindu and is a less Hindu if he doesn’t have a faith in Hindu
religion or does not practices and professes it. Similarly, a person doesn’t cease to be a Hindu if
he becomes an atheist or dissents or deviates from the central doctrines of the Hinduism, or
lapses from orthodox religious practices, or adopts Western way of life.

7. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS:

Hinduism is a religion of Hindu’s in all their forms whether a person may follow it with full heart
or not. It was not founded by any Saint or Prophet like any other religion. It is revealed in the
world and is one of the most ancient religion in the world. The Indian Constitution in the Hindu
Marriage Act, 195517 has made an attempt to define who is a Hindu which is by and large
acceptable. The judgment given by Gajendragadkar J. was a good working elaboration of Hindu
religion in the positive terms. Since a learned judge was called upon to determine whether an
essentially religious sect was a Hindu sect, his task was a comparatively easy task. The supreme
was not required to determine whether a totally non-religious person or a sect was a Hindu or
Hindu sect.
 SUGGESTIONS:
 Since Hinduism is a diverse religion, it often gets difficult to make out whether a person
is a Hindu or not. No doubt specific category of persons are mentioned in our constitution
who are held to be Hindu’s but there is a need of better classification of religions. A
proper test of Hinduness must be formulated so that it becomes easier to determine
whether a person is a Hindu or not.
 Under the definition of the Hindu, we find that the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are also
considered to be Hindu’s which I personally feel isn’t a good law. Ever religion demands
17 The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
 a distinct identity and by covering the above mentioned religions under the definition of
Hindu’s creates a sense of Hindu dominance over other religions which isn’t good
anyway. It may promote hatred among the religious groups and hence, may lead to the
cultivation of hatred in our secular nation.

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY:
 Dr Paras Diwan and Peeyushi Diwan, Modern Hindu Law (Allahabad Law Agency,
Faridabad, Haryana, 24th edn. 2019).

 The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

 Sastri Yagnapurushadji and others v. Muldas Brudardas Vaishya and another, AIR 1966
SC 119 available at: https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=shastri
%20yagnapurushdasji%20v%20muldas (Last visited on 19th August, 2019).

 The Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship Act (Entry Authorisation) Act, 1956.

 The Bombay Harijans Temple Worship (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1958.