The Madras High Court on Friday, July 28, 2023 refused to stay the operation of a single judge’s June 26 verdict that said caste would have no role to play in the appointment of Archakas (temple priests) and that any person properly trained to perform pujas and other rituals as per the Agama Sastra could be appointed to the post.
To get today’s top stories from the State in your inbox, subscribe to our Tamil Nadu Today newsletter here
Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu asked Advocate General R. Shunmugasundaram and Special Government Pleader N.R.R. Arun Natarajan to take notice on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, and adjourned the hearing on the writ appeal to September 22.
Though a specific request was made on behalf of the appellant, Muthu Subramania Gurukkal of Salem, for interim orders, the judges refused to pass any such orders without granting an opportunity to the other side to file its reply. The verdict under challenge in the writ appeal was passed by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.
Assailing the verdict, the appellant said, it was “ex-facie erroneous, unsustainable in law and liable to be reversed. The learned judge erred in traversing beyond the scope of the writ petition and in the process, issuing general directions contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Seshammal’s case (1972).”
The appellant also claimed that the single judge had “totally misconstrued” the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami versus State of Tamil Nadu (1972) and Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam versus Government of Tamil Nadu (2016) while relying upon them to substantiate his conclusion.
“The learned judge having noted the facts that the temple in question (Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple in Salem) is governed by the Karana Agama and appointment of Archakas should be governed by the prescriptions of that Agama, eventually erred in holding that pedigree based on caste will have no role to play,” the grounds of the appeal read.
The appellant claimed the Karana Agama, as well as the other 27 Saiva Agamas clearly prescribe that only persons belonging to the denomination of Adi Saivars/Sivachariyars/Gurukkals are eligible to become Archakas in temples governed by the 28 Saiva Agamas and this custom was upheld by the Supreme Court in Seshammal’s case.
“The learned judge erred in misconstruing Seshammal’s case as if appointments of Archakas from specific denomination can be made only in denominational temples. No such law was ever laid down by the honourable Supreme Court. The entire findings in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 of the impugned (under challenge) order are preposterous,” the appellant claimed.
Recalling that the first Division Bench of the High Court had, in 2022, read down Rules 7 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2000 with respect to Agamic temples, the appellant said, “therefore, the learned judge was incorrect in holding that there cannot be any pedigree based on caste.”
