SASTRI Y AGNAPURUSHADJI AND OTHERS versus MULDAS BHUDARDAS VAISHYA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 242 · Decided: 14-01-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SASTRI Y AGNAPURUSHADJI AND OTHERS 
v. 
MULDAS BHUDARDAS V AISllY A AND AN0111ER 
January 14, 1966 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.) 
Bon1bay Jlb1du Places of l'ublic lVorsliip (Entry A11rhorisa1io11) Act 
(31 of 1956), s._ 3-Valldity. 
Hindu-Who is. 
l'racticL"--VakalaJrhw1a in 
fa\'Ollr of lln 
Advocate-J>rr.~·cnf(Jtion of 
apptal by another ad1·ocare ·working in his clzambers-Jf \'a/id presenta-
tion. 
'The appellants, who are the followers of the Swaminarayan sect and 
known at Satsanjlis, filed a repre\Cntative suit: (i) for a d.claiallon that 
the relevant provisions of the Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947, 
as amended by Act 77 of 1948, did not apply to their tcn1plcs. because, 
the religion of the Swaminarayan sect was dLStinct and different from Hindu 
religion and becau~e. ihc relevant provisions of the Act, 
\l..'Cre ultru ,·irer; 
and (ii) for an injunc1ion restraining the Isl respondent and other non-
Satsangi 
Harijan~ from entering the S\vaminarayan temple. 
The Trial 
Court decreed the suit. 
Pending the !st respondent's appeal in tho Hi&h 
Court, the Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry Au:hori•ation) 
Act, 1956, was passed, and since theh 1947 Act gave place to the 1956 
Act, it became necessary 10 con!iider whether the 1956 Act \\'as intra \lirts. 
The High Court allowed the appeal and dismi<Sed the suit holding that 
the followers of the Sv.·aminarayan sect pro(es!-'.ed Hindu relig:on and thal 
the Act or 1956 \\.'3S constitutionally vatto. 
Jn appeal to thi> Court it was contended that: (i) the Hi~h Court 
erred in treating the lsi respondent's appeal as competent 1,1,·hen the \akaiat-
nama filed on his behalf \Vas invalid (ii) s. 3 of the 1956 Act v.·as 
ultra vires as it cont:avened Art. 26(b) of the Con .. titu'ion; 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. 
HELD: (i) The appeal to the High Court was properly pre-cnted. 
Technically the memorandum of appeal presented by the Assistant 
Go.,.,mmcnt Pleader on behalf of the !st respondent suffered from ao 
infirmity, because, the 1st respondent signed the vakalatnama in favour 
of the Government Pleader. But. since tho Registry had not returned the 
appeal for correcfing the irregularity, and since r. 95 of the A\ll'ellate 
Side Rules of the High Court authorises an advocate to appear even with-
out initially filing a vakalatnama. the High Court was right in allowing 
the Government Pleader to sign the memorandum of appeal and the vaka-
Iatnama, in order to remove the irregularity. (251 E-G; 252 A-CJ 
(ii) There is no substance in the contention that s. 3 contra\'Cnes Art. 
26(h) or the Constitution and i• therefore ultra vi"'· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
f 
G 
H 
.. .. 
' 
.. . 
• 
I 
A 
' 
B 
c 
D 
1 
I 
, 
G 
H 
YAGNAPURUSHADJI V. MULDAS 
243 
The right to enter temples which bas been vouchsafed to the H.arijans 
by the impugned Ac_t. in substance symbolises ~he. n~t of Han1ans to 
enjoy all social ame01t1!"' and nghts, for, social .Justice IS the. main foun-
dation of the democratic way of hfe eoshnned m the prov1S1ons of the 
Indian CorISlitution. Aft.er the Constitution came into force, the whole 
social and religious outlook of the Hindu community has undergone a 
fundamental change as a result of the message of social. eq':'"lity and justice 
proclaimed by the .CorIStitution; and the solem~ prolllise m Art. 17, abo-
lishing untouchab1hty has been gradually, but mes1stibly enforced by tho 
proceiss of law assisted by enlightened public conscience. All that s. 3 of 
the 1956 Act purports to do is to give the Harijans the same right to enter 
tho temple for darshan of the deity as can be claimed by the other Hindus. 
The act of actual worship of the diety is allowed to be performed onl)'. by the 
authorised poojaris of the temple and by no other devotee entering the 
temple for darslum. 
Therefore, it was nont int.entled to invade the tradi-
tion and conventional manner of performing the actual worship of the 
idol. 
(iii) The High O>urt was right in coming to the conclusion that the 
religion of the Swaminarayan sect is not distinct and separate from Hindu 
religion. and corISequently, tho temples belonging to the sect did fall 
within the ambit of s. 2 of the Act. 
The Indian mind has consistently through the ages,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.