Gita Prachar-Prasar Samittee Allahabad challenges SC 5-Judge Bench description of Hindutva as a way of life

Sr. Advocate Prof.Bhim Singh yesterday filed written arguments before the Supreme Court on behalf of Sri Vibhandak Rishi Ashram Vikas Evam Srimad Bhagwad Gita Prachar-Prasar Samittee, Allahabad seeking withdrawal of observation made by a 5-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Mr. P.B. Gajendragadkar in Sastri Yagnapusushadji and Ors. Vs. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya and Another’s Appeal the Constitution Bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice K.N. Wanchoo, Justice M.Hidayatullah, Justice V. Ramaswami & Justice P. Satyanarayana Raju had observed in their judgment dated 14.01.1966 (para 29) that,

“It does not worship any one God; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow to any one set of religious rights of performances; it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.” 

Prof.Bhim in his written submission submitted,

“That the Hon’ble 7-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court may be pleased to reconsider this definition of Hindutva in the light of the message transcended Srimad Bhagvad Gita. According to Sri Krishn (B.G.-2.16-29), the unreal never exists and the real is never without existence at any time. God alone is real permanent, indestructible, changeless and eternal, but heis beyond thought, imperceptible and quite above the fluttering of mind. Action is the name of the mode by which a man attains to God after subduing his mind. Putting this mode into practice is dharma, which is a trust or obligation. As Sri Krishn has told Arjun in the fortieth verse of Chapter 2 (Bhagvad Gita). “Since selfless action neither wears out the seed from which it sprang nor has any adverse consequence, even a partial observance of it liberates one from the dire terror of repeated birth and death.” So the undertaking of this action is Dharma.” 

 The 7-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Mr. T.S. Thakur had allowed Prof.Bhim Singh to submit written arguments in the intervention petition which has been filed on behalf of Sri Vibhandak Rishi Ashram Vikas Evam Srimad Bhagwad Gita Prachar-Prasar Samittee, Allahabad. Prof.Bhim Singh filed written arguments before the Constitution Bench this morning praying that the words, “Hindu Religion may broadly bedescribed as a way of the life and nothing more” may be expunged/deleted from the pages of the judgment of the 5-judge bench which was delivered on 14.01.1966.

Sd/-Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate-on-Record   

————————————————————————————————————————————

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. (CIVIL) NO. 6   OF 2016

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8339 OF 1995

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

Narayan Singh                                                                      …Petitioner

 

Versus

Sunderlal Patwa                                                                    …Respondent

 

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Sri Vibhandak Rishi Ashram Vikas Evam 

Shreemad Bhagwad Gita Prachar —Prasar

Samiti  & Anr.                                                               …Applicant/Intervenor

 

A BRIEF WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF

OF INTERVENOR

 

1.      That the intervenors would like to submit that they are the interested and necessary party in the present case as the judgment delivered by 5-Judge Bench headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. P.B. Gajendragadkar dated 14.01.1966 has interpreted, though casually, that the Hindu religion, “may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more”.

a).     The Hon’ble Constitution Bench was dealing with a matter pertaining to a local dispute over the entry of certain classes of Hindu religion into the temple.

2.      That the Constitution Bench of 5-Judges headed by Chief Justice of India, Mr. P.B. Gajendragadkar came out with a new interpretation of Hindutva/Hinduism for the first time. In para 29 of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.517 of 1964 dated 14.01.1966 titled as Sastri Yagnapurushadji and Others Vs. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya and Another reported as (1966) 3 SCR 242 : AIR 1966 SC 1119 came out with an interpretation of Hindutva without considering the past record and the logic carried out in the Vedas, Scriptures as well as Shrimad Bhagvad Gita. The Constitution Bench said (para 28), “the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. VI, has described ‘Hinduism’ as the title applied to that form of religion which prevails among the vast majority of the present population of the Indian Empire (P.686). As Dr. Radhakrishnan has observed that; “The Hindu civilization is so called, since its original founders or earliest followers occupied the territory drained by the Sindhu (the Indus) river system corresponding to the North West Frontier Province and the Punjab. This is recorded in the Rigu Veda, the oldestof the Vedas, the Hindu scriptures which give their name to this period Indian history. The people on the Indian side of the Sindhu were called Hindu by the Persian history. The people on the Indian side of the Sindhu were called Hindu by the Persian and the later western invaders. That is the genesis of the word ‘Hindu’.”       

3.      That the Constitution Bench though described Hinduism broadly but confined its scope that it was nothing more than a way of life.

4.      That a 3-Judge Bench of Supreme Court of India headed by Justice Mr. J.S. Verma in Civil Appeal No.2835 & 2836 of 1989 in its judgment decided on 11.12.1995 titled as Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo Vs. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte & Ors reported as (1996) 1 SCC. The Supreme Court (para 35) referred Sastri Yagnapurushadji and Others Vs. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya and Another and said, “Who are Hindus and what are the broad features of Hindu religion, that must be the first part of our enquiry in dealing with the present controversy between the parties. The historical and etymological genesis of the word ‘Hindu’ has given rise to a controversy amongst indologists; but the view generally accepted by scholars appears to be that the word ‘Hindu’ is derived from the River Sindhu otherwise known as Indus which flows from the Punjab. ‘That part of the great Aryan race’, says Monier Williams, ‘which immigrated from Central Asia, through the mountain passes into India, settled first in the distircts near the River Sindhu (now called the Indus). The Persians pronounced this word Hindu and named their Aryan brethren Hindus. The Greeks, who probably gained their first ideas of India from the Persians, dropped the hard aspirate, and called the Hindu ‘Indoi’ (‘Hinduism’ by Monier Williams, p.1).”

5.      That Hindu Dharma has passed through several stages/ situations/tense periods in the history of humanity for thousands of years yet it remained a flowering ethos with Ocean of humanity transcending message of humanism and peace to the entire mankind. Hinduism could not be described as a way of life and nothing more. This is a casual interpretation and could not be interpretted as Hindutva described in the Vedas or the Holy Granth of the Hindus, ‘Srimad Bhagvad Gita’. Introducing any change in the concept of the oldest Dharma in the world cannot be appreciated nor it can be accepted by any legal means or methods.  

6.      That the judiciary has competence and authority to interpret the laws made by man. In other words the laws enacted by the legislature or traditional laws could be interpreted by the judiciary but the laws made by God cannot be interpreted by the judicary nor the courts are empowered to interpret the laws made by God. Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world and it has one God alone. The Supreme Court in its judgment in case of Sastri Yagnapurushadji and Others Vs. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya and Another, the Hon’ble 5-Judge Bench has erred by saying that, “It does not worship any one God; it does not subsribe to any one dogma, it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow to any one set of religious rights of performances; it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed.” 

7.      That the Hon’ble 7-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court may be pleased to reconsider this defition of Hindutva in the light of the message transcended Srimad Bhagvad Gita. According to Sri Krishn (B.G.-2.16-29), the unreal never exists and the real is never without existence at any time. God alone is real permanent, indestructible, changeless and eternal, but heis beyond thought, imperceptible and quite above the fluttering of mind. Action is the name of the mode by which a man attains to God after subduing his mind. Putting this mode into practice is dharma, which is a trust or obligation. As Sri Krishn has told Arjun in the fortieth verse of Chapter 2 (Bhagvad Gita). “Since selfless action neither wears out the seed from which it sprang nor has any adverse consequence, even a partial observance of it liberates one from the dire terror of repeated birth and death.” So the undertaking of this action is Dharma. 

8.      That the final submission before this 7-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is that the last line in para 29 which says,”It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more” may be expunged/deleted from the pages of the said judgment.  

SUBMITTED BY:

 

 

PROF.BHIM SINGH

SR. ADVOCATE

NEW DELHI, 19.10.2016.