Caste And Creed Has No Relevance In Appointment Of Archakas In Agamic Temples, Should Be Only Well Versed With Rituals: Madras HC

While making it clear, that in the present case, it is not necessary to wait for the report of the Committee since there is no dispute about the fact that the subject temple is governed by Karanagama, and as there is no dispute on the Agama that governs the subject temple, a bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh thus observed, “In the considered view of this Court, it is always left open to the Trustees/Fit Person to appoint Archakas/Sthanikam in Agamic 39/46 W.P.No.3997 of 2018 temples (where there is no doubt on the Agama that governs the temple) by ensuring that the Archakas/Sthanikam are well-versed, properly trained and qualified to perform the pooja as per the requirements under the Agama. At the risk of repetition, it is made abundantly clear that the pedigree based on caste will have no role to play in the appointment of Archaka if the person so selected otherwise satisfies the requirements”.

Senior Advocate R.Singaravelan appeared for the petitioner and Special Government Pleader N.R.R. Arun Natarajan appeared for the respondents.

It is pertinent to note that through an order dated June 8, 2023, a division bench of the court had directed to file the additional grounds raised by the petitioner during hearing. The petitioner had questioned the notification on the ground that it does not satisfy the requirements provided under the concerned Agama that governs the subject temple.

In the instant miscellaneous petition with additional grounds, M.Muruganantham challenge’s pertained to an advertisement that was issued by. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,  and the Executive Officer, Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple for filling up the post of Archakas/Sthanikam at Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, Salem.

The issued impugned advertisement calling for applications for appointment to the position of Archakas/Sthanikam of the temple was challenged on the ground that it 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.

It was also contended inter alia that the Executive Officer, is an Officer belonging to the Department, therefore cannot appoint Archakas/Sthanikam and that it can be done only by the Trustees of the temple.

It was also submitted that the larger question on the religious practice is sub-judice before the Apex Court in Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabarimala Temple Review - 5 J) v. Indian Young Lawyers Association 2020 (2) SCC 1, and therefore the Department must await the judgment of the Apex Court in the review petitions before making any appointment of Archakas/Sthanikam.

The bench, however, while referring to a catena of judgments to bring clarity into the matter, firstly refused to accept the said contention on hereditary rights while highlighting the judgment in Seshammal & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1972 (2) SCC 11 in the previous hearing.

As per the judgment, the Apex Court made had observed that the appointment of an Archaka is a secular act, and hence, the hereditary right cannot be claimed. Further that the rule of next-in-line of succession cannot be insisted and a trustee is not bound to make the appointment on the sole ground that the candidate is next-in-line of succession to the last holder of the office.

While referring to the principles enunciated in N.Adithayan Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2002 (8) SCC 106, the bench observed, “There is no justification to insist that only a brahmin (in this case, a Malayala brahmin) alone can perform the rites and rituals and that it can be performed by anyone, who is well-versed, properly trained and qualified to perform the pooja in a manner conducive and appropriate to the worship of the particular deity. Hence, the Apex Court frowned on insisting for a pedigree based on caste to perform the rites and rituals in a temple. This is a further reiteration of the principle that the Archaka performing service in the temple falls under the secular part”.

The bench while refusing to accept the contention that the Department should await the judgment in the sub-judice matter, said that if such appointments are halted then it would lead to confusion.

“…it is not necessary to wait for the report of the Committee since there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the subject temple is governed by Karanagama. A confusion may arise only in cases where there is no clarity as to whether the temple is an Agamic or Non Agamic temple and in case it is an Agamic temple, to which Agama it belongs…”, the judgment further read.

The bench while relying on the order of the division bench also refused to accept the submission that the Executive Officer could not have appointed Archakas/Sthanikam.

Accordingly, the court disposed of the matter with directions to the Executive Officer to issue an advertisement in line with the observations made and the Archakas/Sthanikam shall be appointed for Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, Salem.

However, permitted the petitioner to perform the poojas till the appointment of the Archakas/Sthanikam.

Cause Title: Muthu Subramania Gurukkal v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department