Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. [His Lordship after stating the facts of the case, proceeded.] It was not contested before the trial Court after remand that the temples in suit were public religious institutions. The only question that was agitated was whether the temples could be regarded as Hindu temples and it was submitted on behalf of plaintiffs that they were not, as these temples were meant exclusively for the followers of the Swaminarayan creed who, according to plaintiffs, did not profess the Hindu religion. The learned trial Judge held, in view of the definite finding of his predecessor before remand that the congregation of Satsang constituted a section of the Hindu community, that it was not open to the plaintiffs to contend before him that the followers of the Swaminarayan sect were not a section of the Hindu community. As regards the nature of the temples, after considering exhaustively the evidence on the record, the trial Court recorded a finding that the Swaminarayan temple at Ahmedabad and the temples subordinate thereto were Hindu religious institutions within the meaning of Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.

3. Mr. Desai contends that though these temples are religious institutions they are not Hindu religious institutions and he has, therefore, drawn our attention to certain definitions of 'religion' as well as of an 'institution'. According to Mr. Desai, 'religion' is a state of life bound by monastic vows; or action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for and desire to please a divine ruling power; or the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this. Religion, according to Mr. Desai, would be also recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny and as being entitled to obedience, reverence and worship and the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life. These, definitions seem to have been taken from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Mr. Desai has also relied on the definition of 'religion' as given in "Webster's Dictionary, viz. "the outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a God or the Gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service and honour are due." This Dictionary defines "institution" as "an establishment or organised society or corporation, an establishment, especially one of a public character or one affecting a community; a foundation". "We have referred to these definitions in some detail because Mr. Desai repeatedly emphasised that they were germane to the consideration of the question involved in this appeal and the same was of great importance and affected seriously the members of the Satsangi sect. "We may say that in our judgment all these definitions do not essentially differ from the definition of religion in its accepted sense, viz., a system of divine faith and worship; and in order that Mr. Desai should succeed in his contention it will be necessary for him to show that persons belonging to the Swaminarayan sect follow a system of divine faith and worship essentially distinct from Hindu religion. Mr. Desai has not disputed that Swaminarayan was born a Hindu of Hindu parents, but Mr. Desai says that the religion which he founded is a distinct religion, firstly, because Swaminarayan considered himself as the Supreme God, secondly, he established temples for his own worship, thirdly, be propagated the ideal that worship of any other god was a betrayal of his faith and treason to him, and lastly, he appointed Acharyas and prescribed a form of 'diksha' (Initiation) in order that his disciples may attain salvation through him. This, in short, is the whole argument of Mr. Desai on this point.
4. [His Lordship after referring to passages from Vachanamrit, Shikshapatri and Satsangijwan, scriptures of the Swaminarayan sect, proceeded.]
5. In the plaint itself, reference is made to Swaminarayan Sampradaya as a Sampradaya, congregation, and at numerous places as a sect. All the plaintiffs have described themselves as Hindus. Defendant No. 1 is also described as a Hindu and so also defendant No. 2, the present Acharya, and defendant No. 3, the Mahant. Defendant No. 2, who occupies the highest place in the hierarchy of the Sampradaya of the northern diocese has not chosen to give his evidence in the suit as also defendant No. 3, who is the Mahant of the temple at Ahmedabad. They have contented themselves by filing purshis (exh. 101) stating that they do not object to the plaintiffs' suit. Though this was a representative suit, none belonging to the southern diocese joined in the suit. Two Satsangis, as we have already stated, were added as defendants Nos. 5 and 6 and they filed a purshis on their own behalf, which is exh. 280, and in that purshis they made a statement disagreeing with the contention of the plaintiffs that the Satsangi or Swaminarayan Sampradaya was different from Hindu religion but they asserted that it was a section (vibhag) of Hindu religion. They did not, however, either give evidence themselves nor did they examine any witnesses. Our attention was also invited to two judgments, namely, exh. 81, the judgment of Mr. Knight, District Judge, in Suit No. 22 of 1902 dated June 23, 1905, which refers to the founder of the sect as belonging to Vallabhacharya sect of the Vaishnavas, and the judgment of N. J, Wadia J. in First Appeal No. 430 of 1927 decided on October 10, 1904, (exh. 80) where Swaminarayan is referred to as belonging to the Vallabhacharya sect of Vaishnavites. Mr. Desai says that these descriptions have no value in evidence because the point was not at issue in these prior suits. That is no doubt true, but at the same time it cannot be forgotten that till now no claim was ever made on behalf of the Swaminarayan sect that it constituted a religion different from Hinduism. In the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. IX, to which reference has already been made above, at pp. 536-537 the Swaminarayan sect has been described as containing amongst its followers, Brahmans, Bhavsars, Charans, Darjis, Ghanchis, Golas, Kanbis, Kathis, Kolis, Luhars, Malis, Rajputs, Salats, Sathvaras, Sonis and Suthars and is described as the most modern of Vaishnav sects. See also Mr. Bhattacharya's Hindu Castes and Sects, pp. 472-475.
8. [His Lordship after dealing with the oral evidence in the case, proceeded.]
9. This oral evidence does not, in our opinion, establish that Swaminarayan Sampradaya is a distinct religion from Hinduism. It is well known that Hinduism is a religion not only based on the Vedas but other scriptures as well. Every tradition which has sought to purify Hinduism has been absorbed by it with the result that Hindu religion cannot be described as a definite dogmatic creed, but in its essence is very elastic in its scope. The evidence discloses that Swaminarayan was born of Hindu parents and (started his career as a devotee of Krishna and that admittedly an overwhelming majority of Satsangis have been drawn from the ranks of Hindus, i.e., persons professing Hindu religion. Satsangis are known as belonging to the Swaminarayan as also to the Udhav Sampradaya and Udhav was a well known devotee of Shri Krishna. The essence of the teachings of Shikshapatri is based on Hindu religion. Shikshapatri mentions Shri Krishna as Ishta Dev (tutelary deity) of the Sampradaya and other Hindu Gods, like Vishnu, Shiva, Ganapati, Parvati and Surya, ere mentioned as fit to be worshipped. The four castes of Hinduism, namely, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras, are recognised and eight religious books are mentioned as scriptures of the Swaminarayan faith. The main temple of Nar Narayan at Ahmedabad contains below the dome Hindu idols. Hindu non-Satsangis, except Harijans, have freely visited and worshipped the idols in this temple without any let or hindrance whatsoever. The learjied trial Judge, before remand, has remarked that not even a single man came forward to say that he disclosed that he was a non-Satsangi and after that he was allowed to visit the suit temple as a place of religious worship. To some extent this is true; but, as we have already seen, witness Trikamlal Patel was asked whether the right of entry in the suit temple had been asserted by any non-Satsangi non-Harijan Hindu, to which his reply was that such a right was being enjoyed daily and it had never been denied, and our attention has not been invited to any evidence to the contrary. Considerable stress was laid on the fact that persons belonging to other religions, that is to say, Muslims and Parsis, have been initiated as Satsangis and have been admitted to the Swaminarayan fold and it is contended that a Sampradaya which admits persons professing other religions cannot be regarded as Hindu religion. But this contention fails to take into account the fact that these persons of other religions who have been initiated as Satsangis have thereby admittedly not ceased to belong to their own religion. If that be so, it cannot be argued that the overwhelming majority of Hindus who have joined the Swaminarayan Sampradaya have alone forsaken Hindu religion, as is sought to be made out before us.