Skip to main content

Who is Hindu???

 Yagya Purush v. Maluk Das, (1966) 1 SCR 357 (India).

The facts and judgment of the case are as follows:

The appellants, who were the followers of the Swaminarayan sect, filed a suit to claim that their temples were not open to Harijans (Dalits), as they professed a different religion from Hinduism.

The respondent, who was the president of the Maha Gujarat Dalit Sangh, challenged this claim and asserted the rights of Harijans to enter the Swaminarayan temples under the Bombay Hindu Places of Public Worship (Entry Authorisation) Act, 1956.

The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the appellants, but the High Court reversed the decision and dismissed the suit.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment and held that the Swaminarayan sect was not a separate religion, but a reformist movement within Hinduism, and that its temples were subject to the 1956 Act.

The Supreme Court also upheld the constitutional validity of the 1956 Act, which aimed to eradicate the practice of untouchability and promote social justice.

The Supreme Court relied on the works of various scholars and writers on Hindu religion and philosophy, and observed that Hindu religion was not tied to any definite set of philosophic concepts, but was a broad and inclusive faith that accommodated diverse views and practices.

The Supreme Court also examined the basic tenets of the Swaminarayan sect and found that they were in harmony with the fundamental notions of Hindu religion and its philosophy, and that the sect did not claim to be a separate religion from Hinduism.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Swaminarayan sect was a part of the great Hindu family, and that its followers were Hindus in the constitutional sense of the term.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Theories of Punishment

Theories of Punishment Punishment in law serves multiple purposes, and the rationale behind these punishments can be understood through different theories of punishment. These theories form the foundation for justifying punishment and help in shaping law s and sentencing policies. Here’s a detailed explanation of each theory with examples: 1. Deterrent Theory The deterrent theory focuses on preventing crime by imposing severe punishments to create fear among people. The idea is that potential offenders will refrain from committing crimes if they fear punishment. Example : The death penalty or long-term imprisonment for serious offenses like murder or terrorism acts as a deterrent for those considering committing such crimes. 2. Retributive Theory This theory is based on the principle of "an eye for an eye" or giving the offender what they deserve. It focuses on vengeance or moral satisfaction, ensuring the punishment is proportionate to the crime committed. The goal is not to...
Post a Comment
Read more

Companies act ,2013

Companies Act, 2013 Meaning and Nature of a Company with Emphasis on its Advantages 1. Meaning of a Company : A company is a legal entity formed by a group of individuals to engage in and operate a business commercial or industrial enterprise. It is governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in India. According to Section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013, "Company means a company incorporated under this Act or under any previous company law." Lord Justice Lindley : "A company is an association of many persons who contribute money or money's worth to a common stock and employ it for a common purpose. The common stock so contributed is denoted in money and is the capital of the company." A company is an artificial person created by law. It has a separate legal identity distinct from its members. It can enter into contracts, own property, sue, and be sued in its own name. 2. Nature of a Company : The nature of a company can be understood through its key ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another, 43 I.A. 151 (P.C. 1915). Section 53 - Fradulent transfer

Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another, 43 I.A. 151 (P.C. 1915).  This citation indicates that the case was decided by the Privy Council (P.C.) in 1915, and reported in volume 43 of the Indian Appeals (I.A.), starting from page 151.  The case of Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another was a dispute over the validity of two conveyances of land executed by a debtor, Kishun Benode, to his relatives, Kamta Prashad and Hakim Lal, on 2nd September 1901. The plaintiff, Musahar Sahu, was a creditor of Kishun Benode who had obtained a judgment against him on 5th December 1901. The plaintiff sought to set aside the conveyances on the ground that they were made with intent to defeat or delay his claim, under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The courts gave different verdicts on the two conveyances. The first conveyance, in favour of Kamta Prashad, was set aside by the Subordinate Judge and the High Court, as it was found to be without consi...
Post a Comment
Read more