TITLE -Caste Has No Role To Play In Appointment Of Temple Priests

CASE NAME- MuthuSubramaniaGurukkal v The Commissioner, HR&CE Department and others

CITATION-Nos.4916 and 4948 of 2018 & 12136 of 2022

COURT- HIGH Court of Judicature at Madras

BENCH- N. ANAND VENKATESH

Decided on- 26.6.2023

CASE LAWS-

Seshammal& Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

All India Adi Saiva SivachariargalSevaSangam& Others rep.by its General Secretary BSR Muthukumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & another

KantaruRajeevaru (Sabarimala Temple Review - 5 J) Vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association

A.S.NarayanaDeekshitulu Vs. State of A.P. & Others

N.Adithayan Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board

BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY-

The petitioner hails family has been performing the poojas from time immemorial and the position of Sthanikam was occupied as a hereditary right.

The customs and usages were the basis for occupying the position as Sthanikam and every time when there is a change in the Sthanikam, a letter of intimation used to be given to the Authorities, who also granted approval subsequently

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 2 and 3, all of a sudden, issued the impugned advertisement calling for applications for appointment to the position of Archakas/Sthanikam of the subject temple and that the impugned advertisement infringes upon the hereditary right of the petitioner and others, who are rendering their services as per the customs and usage in the line of succession from time immemorial.

Arguments raised by petitioner

Following are the contention raised

Section 38 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (HR & CE Act) wherein it has been specifically mentioned that there is a hereditary right to perform Abhishegam, Archana, Deeparadhana, Pooja etc., and the person performing the same is not entitled for any maanyam.

That nothing in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act should affect the rights of those persons who are otherwise entitled under the customs.

No powers under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act to alter or modify or cancel the rights acquired and enjoyed by the concerned person due to long standing usage and custom. 

Appointment of Archagar/Sthanigar cannot be done by the HR & CE Department and that in the present case, the 3rd respondent is admittedly administering the temple and he is a servant of the HR & CE Department and therefore the impugned notification is liable to be interfered on this ground also.

Argument raised by respondent

Following are the contention raised

Hereditary right to be appointed as Archagar/Sthanigar is no longer available by virtue of the judgment of the Apex Court in (1972) 2 SCC 11 Seshammal and Others -Vs- State of Tamil Nadu.

The applicant is expected to produce the fitness certificate from the Chief Priest. While issuing such a certificate, the Chief Priest will mention about the custom and usage of the temple for which the applicant has been trained and therefore the same will sufficiently take care of the apprehension raised by the petitioner that persons who are not aware about the Agamic practices of the concerned temple will be appointed.

whether the temple follows a particular Agama and whether the applicant does not satisfy the same, are factual issues which cannot be decided in a writ petition.

Requirement of the fitness certificate has been upheld by the Apex Court in Seshammal's case referred supra. 

Executive Officer does not suffer from any illegality.

The subsequent development that has taken place based on the 2020 Rules cannot be taken advantage by the petitioner.

ISSUE

Whether Caste has role In Appointment of Temple Archagarsr ?

Whether they fulfil the requirements under the relevant Agamas?

Whether there will be a stalemate in theappointment of the Archagar/Sthanigar for the templestill this exercise is completed by the Committee?

RATIO

The writ petition is disposed of with a directionto the third respondent to issue an advertisement in line with theobservations made supra and the Archakas/Sthanikam shall beappointed for Sri SugavaneswararSwamy Temple, Salem.

 The advertisement issued by the Executive Officer under the 2020 Rules cannot be questioned on the ground that he is an officer of the Department.

The petitioner shall be permitted to perform the poojas till the appointment of the Archakas/Sthanikam.

Committee, which consists of experts in the field to satisfy themselves that the persons so selected fulfil the requirements prescribed by the Agama.

HELD-

 The Apex Court has also made it very clear that performance of a religious service is an integral part of the religion whereas the Priest or the Archaka performing such service is not so. It differentiated between the religious portion and the secular portion and held that the religious service by an Archaka is the secular part of the religion and the performance of the religious service is an integral part of the religion. Therefore, the prescription provided by the Agamas gains significance only when it comes to the performance of the religious service. Any person belonging to any caste or creed can be appointed as an Archaka provided he is a well-versed and accomplished person in the Agamas and rituals of the temple.It was also held that appointments of Archakas will have to be made in accordance with the Agamas, subject to their due identification as well as their conformity with the Constitutional mandates and principles as discussedabove."