1966 (1) TMI 78 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is a religion distinct and separate from Hindu religion.
2. Whether the temples of the Swaminarayan sect fall within the ambit of the Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry-Authorisation) Act, 1956.
3. Whether the former Act (Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947) and the current Act (Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry-Authorisation) Act, 1956) are ultra vires.
4. Competence and maintainability of the appeal filed by respondent No. 1.
5. Whether the provisions of the Act contravene the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Distinction of Swaminarayan Sampradaya from Hindu Religion:
The primary issue was whether the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is a distinct and separate religion from Hinduism. The appellants argued that the Swaminarayan sect represents a distinct religious sect unconnected with the Hindus and Hindu religion. They contended that their temples were outside the purview of the Act. The court examined the teachings and practices of Swaminarayan, concluding that Swaminarayan was a Hindu saint who aimed to reform Hinduism by removing corrupt practices. The court noted that the Swaminarayan sect adheres to fundamental Hindu principles such as reverence for the Vedas, devotion to Lord Krishna, and the pursuit of Moksha. Therefore, the court held that the Swaminarayan sect is not a separate religion but a part of Hinduism.

2. Applicability of the Act to Swaminarayan Temples:
The court considered whether the temples of the Swaminarayan sect fall within the ambit of the Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry-Authorisation) Act, 1956. The Act aims to make Hindu temples open to all classes and sections of Hindus. The court found that the Swaminarayan temples are Hindu religious institutions within the meaning of the Act. The court emphasized that the Swaminarayan sect's temples are used for worship by Hindus and are, therefore, subject to the provisions of the Act.

3. Constitutionality of the Former and Current Acts:
The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the former Act (Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947) and the current Act (Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry-Authorisation) Act, 1956), arguing they were ultra vires. The court reviewed the legislative history and the sustained efforts to combat untouchability and promote social equality. The court held that both Acts were intra vires and consistent with the Constitution, particularly Article 17, which abolishes untouchability. The court rejected the appellants' argument that the Acts infringed on their fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26, noting that the Acts aimed to ensure social equality and justice.

4. Competence and Maintainability of the Appeal:
The appellants contended that the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was incompetent due to a technical irregularity in the Vakalatnama. The court noted that the appeal was admitted and heard by the High Court despite the irregularity. The court emphasized that no party should suffer due to a mistake by the court or its office. The court upheld the High Court's decision to allow the Government Pleader to sign the memorandum of appeal and the Vakalatnama, thereby curing the irregularity.

5. Fundamental Rights and Provisions of the Act:
The appellants argued that Section 3 of the Act contravened their fundamental rights under Article 26(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to manage religious affairs. The court found this contention to be misconceived. The court clarified that Section 3 of the Act aims to ensure that all Hindus, including Harijans, have equal rights to enter and worship in Hindu temples. The court emphasized that the Act does not interfere with the traditional and conventional manner of worship performed by authorized Poojaris. The court held that the Act was not ultra vires and did not violate the appellants' fundamental rights.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that the Swaminarayan sect is a part of Hinduism and that the temples of the sect fall within the ambit of the Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry-Authorisation) Act, 1956. The court dismissed the appellants' arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Acts and the competence of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed with costs.