Judgment :- 1. The Mullackal Bhagavathi Temple at Alleppey is a well-known Hindu temple and is an'Incorporated Devaswom', the administration of which, under S.3 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu, Religious Institutions Act (Act XV of 1950), vests in the Travancore-Devaswom Board. 2. The annual festival Utsavam of this temple is conducted during the Mandalam period (November-December) and is known as Mandalam Chirappu. During the last eleven days of this festival there are special pujas within the temple besides Sreebeli, processions and entertainments like music concerts for the entertainment of the worshipping public. The ceremonies on particular dates are conducted at the expense of individuals or groups. 3. In the 1972 festival, the expenditure of the Utsavam on 23-12-1972 was being met by one Shri P. S. Mony, Proprietor of Chempaka Jewellers Alleppey. For arranging a music concert on the day with in the compound walls of the temple by the well-known play-back singer Shri. K. J. Jesudas, he requested the Travancore Devaswom Board to permit Mr. Jesudas to enter the temple premises on the day. Pursuant to this request which Sri. Mony had made by an application of 9-11-1972, the Board by its communication of 18-11-1972 informed him that all believers in Hindu faith could enter the temples and that as Shri Jesudas has shown by his worship in the Sabarimala temple etc. in the customary mode that he is believer in temple worship, he could certainly be invited for the concert. It might be pointed here that Sri. Jesudas is a Catholic Christian by birth. Copies of the Board's communication were forwarded to the Devaswom Commissioner and the Ambalapuzha Group Assistant Devaswom Commissioner. 4. The petitioner who is an advocate is the Secretary of the Mullakkal Temple Advisory Committee and a copy of the Board's communication to Sri. Mony was forwarded to the petitioner by the Sreekariakkar (Executive Officer) of the temple. He also saw in the daily newspaper "Kerala Sree" a declaration, purported to have been made by Sri. Jesudas which reads as follows:-"I declare that I am a follower of Hindu Faith also". He also saw in the Malayala Manorama of 20th December 1972 a statement made by the President of the Travancore Devaswom Board that there is no bar to Sri. Jesudas entering the premises of the Mullakkal Temple and that the Board has granted permission to him to enter the Temple precincts. 5. He also saw in the Malayala Manorama of 20th December 1972 a statement made by the President of the Travancore Devaswom Board that there is no bar to Sri. Jesudas entering the premises of the Mullakkal Temple and that the Board has granted permission to him to enter the Temple precincts. 5. The petitioner has moved this court for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the decision of the Devaswom Board to admit Sri. Jesudas into the premises of the temple and for a writ for restraining the respondents who are the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Sreekariakkar of the temple from implementing the said decision. 6. The contentions of the petitioner are that the action of the Devaswom Board results in allowing a non-Hindu to enter Hindu Temple and this action is without authority of law. Such action is not authorised by the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 or the Rules made thereunder. According to the petitioner a person can be a Hindu by birth or by conversion but a mere declaration that he is a follower of the Hindu faith is not sufficient to convert a person to Hinduism. R.3 of the Rules framed under the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, it is alleged, specifically debars persons who are not Hindus from entering within the compound wall of a temple. So also R.6 framed by the Travancore Devaswom passed in exercise of the powers conferred by S.9 of the Travancore-Cochin Temple Entry (Removal of Disabilities) Act, Act XXVII of 1950. In short the petitioner's contention is that as Shri Jesudas is a Catholic Christian and there is no evidence that he has ever been converted to the Hindu faith, the decision of the Board to allow his entry into temple is illegal and invalid. The petitioner points out that in the first instance the Devaswom Officer had pointed out to Sri Mony that the declaration by Shri Jesudas (extracted earlier) is not in accordance with law and without a proper declaration enjoined by law his entry into temple cannot be allowed. The Board, it is contended, can only administer the temple in accordance with law and custom and it cannot interfere in matters of religion. The Board, it is contended, can only administer the temple in accordance with law and custom and it cannot interfere in matters of religion. The impugned action of the Board is said to violate the petitioner's fundamental right to freedom of religion guaranteed under Arts.25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. 7. The first respondent Board seeks to support its decision on the following averments. Sri. Jesudas was allowed entry into the premises of the temple because the Board was convinced that he is a follower of Hindu faith also and therefore a Hindu by religion, though he is a born Christian. The law enjoins that every place of public worship which is open to Hindus shall be open to all sections and classes of Hindus. The expression Hindu is said to be comprehensive enough to take within its ambit persons who are Hindus by birth and Hindus by religion. It is further submitted by the Board that Hinduism is a way of life and any person who believes in that way of life is a Hindu. Therefore such a person shall not be prohibited, obstructed or discouraged from entering places of public worship. According to the Board, Sri Jesudas has proved himself to be a believer in Hindu faith also and therefore entitled to enter any place of public worship under S.3 of the Act. It is pointed out by the Board that under S.4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, it is the competent authority under the Act to make rules and regulations for the maintenance of order and decorum and due performance of the rites and ceremonies in Hindu places of public worship in the Travancore area. S.4 of the 1965 Act is a re-enactment of S.9 of the Travancore-Cochin Temple Entry (Removal of Disabilities) Act. 1950 (Act XXVII of 1950) which Act was repealed by the 1965 Act. Rules had been made by the Board in 1952 under S.9 of Act XXVII of 1950. The Board's contention is that as no fresh rules have been made under S.4 of 1965 Act, 1952, Rules continue in force. The relevant rules thus in force are herewith extracted.: "3. Rules had been made by the Board in 1952 under S.9 of Act XXVII of 1950. The Board's contention is that as no fresh rules have been made under S.4 of 1965 Act, 1952, Rules continue in force. The relevant rules thus in force are herewith extracted.: "3. In order that the customs and usages obtaining in the several temples to which Act XXVII of 1950 might apply in regard to the poojas, Nivediams, Vazhivadus, Nithanidanam, Masavisesham, Attavisesham, Ulsavam, and other ordinary and special ceremonies and rituals shall continue to be observed as heretofore, it shall be competent to the Chief Officer of the Devaswom to give such directions as may be necessary from time to time for regulating the time of entry and worship or limiting the number of those who may enter for worship at a time or maintaining such special customs and usages as obtain in the several temples." "4. The permission to enter a temple shall not be exercised so as to empower entrance into the Srikoil, Thidapalli (kitchen) and other portions of the temple where specific restrictions even now exist in regard to all persons except those who are allowed to use those portions by custom." "5. All worshippers are bound to conform to the directions given by the Chief Officer of the Devaswom in regard to the observance of the customs and usages obtaining in the several temples and in regard to the places which have to be reserved for the time being for the proper conduct of the rituals in the temple". "6. The classes of persons mentioned hereunder shall not enter within the compound wall of a temple or its premises in ease there is no compound wall. (a) Persons who are not Hindus. (b) Persons under pollution arising out of birth or death in their families, (c) Women at such times during which they are not by custom and usage allowed 10 enter temples. (d) Drunken or disorderly persons. (e) Persons suffering from any loathsome or contagious disease. (f) Persons of unsound mind except when taken for worship under proper control and with the sanction of the Chief Officer of the Devaswom concerned, and (g) Professional beggars.". 7. (d) Drunken or disorderly persons. (e) Persons suffering from any loathsome or contagious disease. (f) Persons of unsound mind except when taken for worship under proper control and with the sanction of the Chief Officer of the Devaswom concerned, and (g) Professional beggars.". 7. If the Chief Officer has reasonable doubt that a person entering the temple is a non-Hindu he may require that person to give a declaration in writing to the following effect in a register to be kept for the purpose and the -person shall be bound to give the declaration. "I declare that I am a follower of the Hindu Faith "20 In case of any doubt or dispute regarding the interpretation of the carrying out of any provisions of these rules, the decision of the Travancore Devaswom Board thereon shall be final". "21 In cases of emergencies and unforeseen difficulties that may arise in carrying out the provisions and objects of the aforesaid Act or of these Rules, the Travancore Devaswom Board shall be competent to pass such orders as they may deem fit." The Board stresses on the last two rules for contending that its decision on the matter is final. 8. Before I deal with the points at issue I would like to refer to the Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner filed for interim relief in the matter. By C.M.P 16330/ 72 the petitioner sought an interim order of injunction restraining the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Chief Executive Officer of the Mullackal Bhagavathi Temple from implementing the decision of the Travancore Devaswom Board "permitting the non-Hindu K. J. Jesudas to enter the premises of the Mullackal Bhagavathi Temple at Alleppey and from taking further steps pursuant to Ext. P-1 memo of the Devaswom Board till the disposal of the Original Petition." On this, my learned brother, Eradi J. ordered: "Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has chosen to approach this court only at the last minute when all the arrangements for the concert have already been made and the concert is to take place tomorrow, I consider that the only direction that is now called for is that the respondents should not permit any of the non-Hindus who may be coming to the temple premises in connection with the concert to enter the 'Naalambalam' of the temple. They may be permitted to go only up to the flag-mast (Kotimaram) and not be-vond'it towards the 'Naalambalam." The concert may be conducted at any convenient place within the temple compound subject to the above restriction. The C.M.P. is disposed of with the above directions". Though the concert is now over, as questions of fundamental importance are raised in the O. P., it is necessary to decide these questions in this O. P. 9. At the time of hearing Mr. C. K. Sivasankara Panicker appearing for the first respondent Board raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person in the matter and hence disentitled to move the Original Petition I have no hesitation in overruling this objection. The petitioner is a Hindu entitled to worship in the temple concerned. The administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of Hindu Religious Endowments and all their properties and funds which where under the management of the Ruler of Travancore prior to first day of July 1949 except the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple, Sree Pandaravaka properties and all other properties and funds of the said temple has vested in the Travancore Devaswom Board under S 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. Under S.31 of the said Act the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms both incorporated and unincorporated as heretofore and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. The position of the Board in regard to the Devaswoms incorporated and unincorporated-is analogous to that of trustees. Any improper act of the Trustees could be questioned by a worshipper. It might be noted here that under S.2 (d) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act in the case of a temple a'person interested' is defined to include a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple or who is entitled to part-take or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat. Though the Board has the duty to arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals, it will amount to breach of trust if under the guise of such making arrangement they interfere with the mode or alter in any manner the mode or rules of such worship. That will certainly amount to interference with an essential part of Hindu Religion. As Justice Mukerjea (as he then was) observed in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Skirur Mutt (AIR. 1954 S. C. 282) matters of religion embrace not merely matters of doctrine but also the practice of it, or to put in terms of Hindu theology, not merely its Gnana but also its Bhakthi and Karma Kandas. In AIR. 1958 Supreme Court 255 -Venkataramana Devam v. State of Mysore, it had been unequivocally held by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that under the ceremonial law pertaining to temples, who are entitled to enter into for worship and where they are entitled to stand and worship and how the worship is to be conducted are all matters of religion which conclusion their Lordships say is implicit in Art.25 which after declaring that all persons are entitled freely to profess, practise and propagate religion enacts that this should not affect the operation of any law throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. In AIR. 1972 S.C.1586, E. R. J. Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, it is stated that protection of Art.25 and 26 is not limited to the matters of doctrine or belief but extends also to acts done in performance of religion and therefore, contain a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion". If any action of the Board amounts to intrusion into any matter of religion as such, then certainly a worshipper could seek this court's jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Therefore, I would now go into the main question of controversy arising in this Original Petition. Now under S.3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 (and previously under the relevant provision in the Travancore-Cochin Temple Entry (Removal of Disabilities) Act. XXVII of 1950). 10. Therefore, I would now go into the main question of controversy arising in this Original Petition. Now under S.3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 (and previously under the relevant provision in the Travancore-Cochin Temple Entry (Removal of Disabilities) Act. XXVII of 1950). notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law or any decree or order of court, every place of public worship which is open to Hindus generally or to any section or class thereof shall be open to all sections and classes of Hindus; and no Hindu of whatsoever section or class shall, in any manner, be prevented, obstructed or discouraged from entering such place of public worship, or from worshipping or offering prayers thereat, or performing any religious service therein, in the like manner and to the like extent as any other Hindu of whatsoever section or class may enter, worship, pray or perform. Therefore the question reduces itself as to whether Sri. Jesudas could be deemed to be a Hindu by bis declaration which I had extracted earlier. If he can be so considered then not only the Board was right in its decision, but no one could prevent Sri Jesudas from entering the temples. Every Hindu has got a right to enter a temple. Who is a Hindu? It is usually said that a person may be a Hindu by birth or by conversion. But in regard to conversion to Hinduism no formal ceremony of purification or expiation as such is necessary. A bona fide intention to accept the Hindu faith, accompanied by conduct unequivocally expressing that intention may be sufficient evidence of such conversion (See observations of Shah, J. in Perumal v. Ponnuswami AIR. 1971 S.C. 2352 at 2353, para 6.) 11. In this context the following passages from the judgment of Chief Justice Gajendragadkar in Yagnapurushdasji v. Muldas AIR. 1966 S.C.1119 are apposite: "(29) When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. 1971 S.C. 2352 at 2353, para 6.) 11. In this context the following passages from the judgment of Chief Justice Gajendragadkar in Yagnapurushdasji v. Muldas AIR. 1966 S.C.1119 are apposite: "(29) When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet, 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 any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, 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. (30) Confronted by this difficulty, Dr. Radhakrishnan realised that "to many Hinduism seems to be a name without any content. Is it a museum of beliefs, a medley of rites, or a mere map, a geographical expression? ("The Hindu View of Life" by Dr. Radhakrishnan, p.11)" Having posed these questions which disturbed foreigners when they think of Hinduism, Dr. Radhakrishnan has explained how Hinduism has steadily absorbed the customs and ideas of peoples with whom it has come into contact and has thus been able to maintain its supremacy and its youth. The term "Hindu", according to Dr. Radhakrishnan had originally a territorial and not a credal significance. It implied residence in a well defined geographical area. Aboriginal tribes, savage and half-civilized people, the cultured Dravidian and the Vedic Aryans were all Hindus as they were the sons of the same mother. The Hindu thinkers reckoned with the striking fact that the men and women dwelling in India belonged to different communities, worshipped different gods, and practised different rites ("The Hindu View of Life" by Dr. Radhakrishnan, p. 12) (Kurma Purana). (31) Monier Williams has observed that "it must be borne in mind that Hinduism is far more than a mere form of theism resting on Brahmanism. Radhakrishnan, p. 12) (Kurma Purana). (31) Monier Williams has observed that "it must be borne in mind that Hinduism is far more than a mere form of theism resting on Brahmanism. It presents for our investigation a complex congeries of creeds and doctrines which in its gradual accumulation may be compared to the gathering together of the mighty volume of the Ganges, swollen by a continual influx of tributary rivers and rivulets, spreading itself over an ever-increasing area of country, and finally resolving itself into an intricate Delta of tortuous streams and jungly marshes The Hindu religion is a reflection of the composite character of the Hindus, who are not one people but many. It is based on the idea of universal receptivity. It has ever aimed at accommodating itself to circumstances, and has carried on the process of adaptation through more than three thousand years. It has first borne with and then, so, to speak, swallowed, digested, and assimilated something from all creeds "(Religious Thought & Life in India" by Monier Williams, p. 57). (32) We have already indicated that the usual tests which can be applied in relation to any recognised religion or religious creed in the world turn out to be inadequate in dealing with the problem of Hindu religion. Normally, any recognised religion or religious creed subscribes to a body of set philosophic concepts and theological beliefs. Does this test apply to the Hindu religion? In answer to this question, we would base ourselves mainly on the exposition of the problem by Dr. Radhakrishnan in his work on Hindu Philosophy. ("Indian Philosophy" by Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vol.1, pp.22-23). Unlike other countries, India can claim that philosophy in ancient India was not an auxiliary to any other science or art, but always held a prominent position of independence. The Mundaka Upanisad speaks of Brahmavidya or the science of the eternal as the basis of all sciences, 'sarva-vidya-pratistha'. According to Kautilya, "Philosophy" is the lamp of all the sciences, the means of performing all the works and the support of all the duties. "In all the fleeting centuries of history" says Dr. Radhakrishnan, "in all the vicissitudes through which India has passed, a certain marked identity is visible. According to Kautilya, "Philosophy" is the lamp of all the sciences, the means of performing all the works and the support of all the duties. "In all the fleeting centuries of history" says Dr. Radhakrishnan, "in all the vicissitudes through which India has passed, a certain marked identity is visible. It has held fast to certain psychological traits which constitute its special heritage and they will be the characteristic marks of the Indian people so long as they are privileged to have a separate existence". The history of Indian thought emphatically brings out the fact that the development of Hindu religion has always been inspired by an endless quest of the mind for truth based on the consciousness that truth has many facets. Truth is one but wise men describe it differently... The Indian mind has, consistently through the ages, been exercised over the problem of the nature of godhead the problem that faces the spirit at the end of life. and the inter-relation between the individual and the universal soul. "If we can abstract from the variety of opinion", says Dr. Radhakrishnan, "and observe the general spirit of Indian thought, we shall find that it has a disposition to interpret life and nature in the way of monistic, idealism, though this tendency is so plastic, living and manifold that it takes many forms and expresses itself in even mutually hostile teachings. (Ibid, p. 32.) (33) The monistic idealism which can be said to be the general distinguishing feature of Hindu Philosophy has been expressed in four different forms: (1) Non-dualism or Advaitism; (2) Pure monism; (3) Modified monism; and (4) Implicit monism. 11 is remarkable that these different forms of monistici dealism purport to derive support from the same Vedic and Upanishadic texts. Shankar, Ramanuja, Vallabha and Madhava all based their philosophic concepts on what they regarded to be the synthesis between the Upanishads, the Brahmasutras and the Bhagvad Gita. Though philosophic concepts and principles evolved by different Hindu thinkers and philosophers varied in many ways and even appeared to conflict with each other in some particulars, they all had reverence for the past and accepted the Vedas as sole foundation of the Hindu philosophy. Naturally enough, it was realised by Hindu religion from the very beginning of its career that truth was many-sided and different views contained different aspects of truth which no one could fully express. Naturally enough, it was realised by Hindu religion from the very beginning of its career that truth was many-sided and different views contained different aspects of truth which no one could fully express. This knowledge inevitably bred a spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent's point of view. That is how "the several views set forth in India in regard to the vital philosophic concepts are considered to be the branches of the self-same tree. The short cuts and blind alleys are somehow reconciled with the main road of advance to the truth" (Ibid. p. 48). When we consider this broad sweep of the Hindu philosophic concepts, it would be realised that under Hindu philosophy, there is no scope for excommunicating any notion or principle as heretical and rejecting it as such. (34) Max Muller who was a great oriental scholar of his time was impressed by this comprehensive and all pervasive aspect of the sweep of Hindu philosophy. Referring to the six systems known to Hindu Philosophy, Max Muller observed: "The longer I have studied the various systems, the more have I become impressed with the truth of the view taken by Vijnanabhiksu and others that there is behind the variety of the six systems a common fund of what may be called national or popular philosophy, a large manasa (lake) of philosophical thought and language far away in the distant north and in the distant past from which each thinker was allowed to draw for his own purposes." (Six systems of Indian Philosophy" by Max Muller, p. xvii.) (35) Beneath the diversity of philosophic thoughts, concepts and ideas expressed by Hindu philosophers who started different philosophic schools, lie certain broad concepts which can be treated as basic. The first amongst these basic concepts is the acceptance of the Veda as the highest authority, in religious and philosophic matters. This concept necessarily implies that all the systems claim to have drawn their principles from a common reservoir of thought enshrined in the Veda. The Hindu teachers were thus obliged to use the heritage they received from the past in order to make their views readily understood. The other basic concept which is common to the six systems of Hindu philosophy is that "all of them accept the view of the great world rhythm. The Hindu teachers were thus obliged to use the heritage they received from the past in order to make their views readily understood. The other basic concept which is common to the six systems of Hindu philosophy is that "all of them accept the view of the great world rhythm. Vast periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession. This theory is not inconsistent with belief in progress; for it is not a question of the movement of the world reaching its goal times without number, and being again forced back to its starting-point. It means that the race of man enters upon and retravels its ascending path of realization. This interminable succession of world ages has no beginning. ("Indian Philosophy" by Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vol. II. p. 26). It may also be said that all the systems of Hindu philosophy believe in rebirth and pre-existence. "Our life is a step on a road, the direction and goal of which are lost in the infinite. On this road, death is never an end or an obstacle but almost the beginning of new steps. ("Indian Philosophy" by Dr. Radhakrishnan Vol. II p. 27). Thus, it is clear that unlike other religions and religious creeds, Hindu religion is not tied to any definite set of philosophic concepts as such. (36) Do the Hindus worship at their temples the same set or number of gods? That is another question which can be asked in this connection; and the answer to this question again has to be in the negative. Indeed, there are certain sections of the Hindu community which do not believe in the worship of idols; and as regards those sections of the Hindu community which believe in the worship of idols, their idols differ from community to community and it cannot be said that one definite idol or a definite number of idols are worshipped by all the Hindus in general. In the Hindu Pantheon the first gods that were worshipped in Vedic times were mainly Indra, Varuna, Vayu and Agni. Later, Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh came to be worshipped. In the Hindu Pantheon the first gods that were worshipped in Vedic times were mainly Indra, Varuna, Vayu and Agni. Later, Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh came to be worshipped. In course of time, Rama and Krishna secured a place of pride in the Hindu Pantheon, and gradually as different philosophic concepts held sway in different sects and in different sections of the Hindu community, a large number of gods were added with the result that to-day the Hindu Pantheon presents the spectacle of a very large number of gods who are worshipped by different sections of the Hindus. (37) The development of Hindu religion and philosophy shows that from time to time saints and religious reformers attempted to remove from the Hindu thought and practices elements of corruption and superstition and that led to the formation of different seels. Buddha started Buddhism; Mahavir founded Jainlsm; Basava became the founder of Lingayat religion, Dhyaneshwar and Tukaram initiated the Varakari cult; Guru Nanak inspired Sikhism; Dayananda founded Arya Samaj; and Chaitanya Began Bhakti cult; and as a result of the teachings of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, Hindu religion flowered into its most attractive, progressive and dynamic form. If we study the teachings of these saints and religious reformers, we would notice an amount of divergence in their respective views; but underneath that divergence, there is a kind of subtle indescribable unity which keeps them within the sweep of the broad and progressive Hindu religion. (38) There are some remarkable features of the teachings of these saints and religious reformers. All of them revolted against the dominance of rituals and the power of the priestly class with which it came to be associated; and all of them proclaimed their teachings not in Sanskrit which was the monopoly of the priestly class, but in the languages spoken by' the ordinary mass of people in their respective regions. (39) Whilst we are dealing with this broad and comprehensive aspect of Hindu religion, it may be permissible to enquire what, according to this religion, is the ultimate goal of humanity? It is the release and freedom from the unceasing cycle of births and rebirths; Moksha or Nirvana, which is the ultimate aim of Hindu religion and philosophy, represents the state of absolute absorption and assimilation of the individual soul with the infinite. What are the means to attain this end? It is the release and freedom from the unceasing cycle of births and rebirths; Moksha or Nirvana, which is the ultimate aim of Hindu religion and philosophy, represents the state of absolute absorption and assimilation of the individual soul with the infinite. What are the means to attain this end? On this vital issue, there is great divergence of views; some emphasise the importance of Gyan or knowledge, while others extol the virtues of Bhakti or devotion; and yet others insist upon the paramount importance of the performance of duties with a heart full of devotion and mind inspired by true knowledge. In this sphere again, there is diversity of opinion, though all are agreed about the ultimate goal. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to apply the traditional tests in determining the extent of the jurisdiction of Hindu religion. It can be safely described as a way of life based on certain basic concepts to which we have already referred. (40) Tilak faced this complex and difficult problem of defining or at least describing adequately Hind religion and he evolved a working formula which may be regarded as fairly adequate and satisfactory. Said Talak: "Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and realisation of the truth that the number of gods to be worshipped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of Hindu religion." (B. G. Tilak's Gitarahasava"). This definition brings out succinctly the broad distinctive features of Hindu religion. It is somewhat remarkable that this broad sweep of Hindu religion has been eloquently described by Toynbee. Says Toynbee: "When we pass from the plane of social practice to the plane of intellectual outlook, Hinduism too comes out well by comparison with the religions and ideologies of the South-West Asian group. In contrast to these Hinduism has the same outlook as the pre-Christian and pre-Muslim religions and philosophies of the Western half of the old world. Like them, Hinduism takes it for granted that there is more than one valid approach, to truth and to salvation and that these different approaches are not only compatible with each other, but are complementary. In contrast to these Hinduism has the same outlook as the pre-Christian and pre-Muslim religions and philosophies of the Western half of the old world. Like them, Hinduism takes it for granted that there is more than one valid approach, to truth and to salvation and that these different approaches are not only compatible with each other, but are complementary. "The Present day Experiment in Western Civilisation" by Toynbee, page 48--49) (41) The Constitution-makers were fully conscious of this broad and comprehensive character of Hindu religion; and so, while guaranteeing the fundamental right to freedom of religion, Explanation II to Art.25 has made it clear that in sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly". Arnold J. Toynbee, whom Gajendragadkar C. J. has quoted in the decision " referred sums up the Hindu approach in the following words in his "Azad Memorial Lectures" "And the Indian outlook, as I see it, the intellectual counterpart of the Indian spirit of non-violence, is a belief that, for us human beings, there is more than one approach to truth and to saivation. By 'truth' I mean a glimpse of absolute spiritual Reality. By 'salvation' I mean attaining harmony in some degree with Reality when one has had a vision of Reality. This broad-minded approach to Reality is, I believe, characteristic of India. If I am right, a devout and zealous Shaiva and a devout and zealous Vaishnava would each recognise that the other was seeking truth and salvation in his own way each might perhaps claim that his own way was the better one, at any rate for himself. But he would not maintain that his own way was the only way that had any truth or virtue in it. He would not contend that his neighbour's way was utterly false and vicious. He would not dismiss it as being not Hinduism, or as being not religion at all. Nor would he maintain that ' his own form of religion had been revealed, once for all, at some particular time and place." Hinduism does not really recognize any formal conversion as such. It recognises that people born in several religions can attain salvation by the proper observance of the behests of their respective religions. Nor would he maintain that ' his own form of religion had been revealed, once for all, at some particular time and place." Hinduism does not really recognize any formal conversion as such. It recognises that people born in several religions can attain salvation by the proper observance of the behests of their respective religions. T may quote here with advantage the following lines from an authority of unquestionable eminence on the subject Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi the present senior Sankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam- a great Hindu Saint and Savant of Modern times (these passages are taken from the Chapter under the heading "The Strength of our Religion" in the book'Aspects of Our Religion" Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi, published by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan): "In the matter of the form that one chooses far one's worship, one goes by the practice In vogue, the Sampradaaya in one's family. There is no need to give up one form of worship and adopt another. Similarly one need not give up the religion in which one is born and adopt another. The apachaara or sin in conversion is not so much in going to a new religion as in giving up the old religion in which one was born. The convert to another religion scorns at the God whom he was worshipping the previous day. This one thing is enough for his damnation. It has been said: Poorvairaacharitam Kuryaat anyathaa patitobhavet. One should observe the traditional practices in religion; else, he is a fallen man. Invitation to a new religion implies that all who lived before the birth of that religion did not attain salvation and also that salvation is denied so all those who do not belong to that religion. Obviously this is absurd." "It is not necessary that we should try to bring about uniformity in religions. Unity is what is important not uniformity. There can be unity in diversity. There is such a unity in our religion in spite of the endless variety of its forms and features, the names given to the One God and the methods of worship. This variety has not impaired the integral unity of pur faith. AD of us are followers of the one Vedic religion. Born in a sampradaaya or tradition, each one of us follows it and that traditional path ultimately takes each to the common goal. This variety has not impaired the integral unity of pur faith. AD of us are followers of the one Vedic religion. Born in a sampradaaya or tradition, each one of us follows it and that traditional path ultimately takes each to the common goal. That is true not only with the various forms of our faith, but with all the religions that exist in the world today. When a passenger gets down from his train and comes out of the station, the drivers of different conveyances try to snatch "his luggage and each tries to put him into his vehicle. The pratagonist of each school of religious thought tries to attract men by saying that his school is the easiest and surest way to reach the truth. When it is realised that all paths in religion lead to the same goal, there will be no need to change the path one is already following. There cannot be hatred of a person following a different path. The temple, the form of the God installed in it, His name, the form of worship, all these may differ from different people due to differences of tastes (rucheenaam vaichitryaat). But what is required of one is to persist in the path one is following " Therefore when a person declares that he is a follower of Hindu faith also, as long as that declaration is not challenged as made mala fide or with ulterior intentions, it has to be taken as his having accepted the Hindu approach to God. He has become a Hindu by conviction. 12. There is no allegation in the petition that Shri Jesudas had made the declaration that he is a follower of Hindu faith also, with any ulterior intention or that it is otherwise mala fide. The Board also had come to the conclusion on the basis of certain objective facts like his worshipping in the Sabari Mala Temple that Sri. Jesudas is a believer in temple worship. Though a wild statement is made that the action of the Board is lacking in good faith there is no specific charge of mala fide action by the Board. In the circumstances I find no reason to upset the decision taken by the Board in allowing Shri Jesudas to enter the temple premises. 13. I might point out here that Sri. In the circumstances I find no reason to upset the decision taken by the Board in allowing Shri Jesudas to enter the temple premises. 13. I might point out here that Sri. Jesudas was rightly a necessary party to this O.P. Though I had gone into the merits of the case and is dismissing the O.P. on the merits, the O.P. should have failed on the ground of non joinder of a necessary party as respondent. 14. It is not contended before me on behalf of the Board and according to me quite rightly too, that the Board is entitled to admit any non-Hindu to a temple. What is contended for is that Hinduism being a way of life as such, any person who believes in that way of life and conducts himself accordingly is a Hindu and he shall not be prohibited, obstructed or discouraged from entering Hindu place of public worship. This is far from saying that a non-Hindu, one who is not a follower of Hindu faith should be admitted to temple. In.the light of the stand taken by the Board I do not consider it necessary that this court should not issue a writ in general terms to restrain the Board from permitting any non-Hindu to enter any Hindu temple. The court cannot assume that a responsible statutory body would act outside its powers or in an illegal or unconstitutional manner. Subject to the above observations, the O.P. is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case I do not make any order as to costs.