Appointment Of Archakas In Temple Constructed Under Agamas Will Be Governed By Agamas: Madras High Court

In a significant decision, the Madras High Court has held that the appointment of Archakas in the temple or group of temples constructed under the respective Agama shall, accordingly, be governed by the Agamas and not by Rules 7 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020.

The Bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N. Mala held thus "…the appointment of Archaka/Poojari would be governed by the Agama under which the temple or group of temples were constructed. It is, however, with a clarity that this judgment would not be applicable to those temples which are not constructed as per the Agamas."

The Bench directed the State Government to constitute a Five-Member Committee, including therein Justice M. Chockalingam, Retired Judge of the Madras High Court, with N.Gopalaswami, Head of the Madras Sanskrit College's Executive Committee, to identify the temples which were constructed as per Agamas.

The Court also expressed that in case any appointment of Archaka is made offending the Agamas, then the individual aggrieved person can challenge such appointment before the High Court. However, the Court clarified that the appointment of Archaka would be made by the trustees or a fit person and not by the HR & CE Department.

The Bench has also held that transfer of the Archakas would not be permissible unless it is a case of transfer of Archaka of the temple governed by a particular Agama to a temple governed by the same Agama.

The Bench was dealing with a batch of writ petitions challenging the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020 introduced by the state government.

The challenge to the Rules 2(c), 7(b) and 9 of the Rules of 2020 was made in reference to Articles 16(5), 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, apart from the ratio propounded in the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Seshammal and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, and subsequent Judgment in the case of Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam and others. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case supra had discussed the issue in regard to the appointment of Archakas in the temple or group of temples, where construction, installation of idols and worship of the deity is as per Agamas. The import of the Judgment of the Constitution Bench is to follow the customs and rituals as stipulated in the Agamas.

Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, Advocates P.Valliappan, N.R.Vengatesh and P.Neelakantan appeared for the Petitioners in the batch of writ petitions. Petitioner B.Jagannath appeared in person while Advocate General .R.Shanmugasundaram appeared for the State.

Petitioners' Contentions

It was the petitioners' case that the Rules of 2020 were framed ignoring the rituals and customs stipulated in the Agamas. According to the petitioners, the qualification given under the Rules of 2020 cannot apply for the post of Archaka/Poojari to be appointed in the temples, where construction, installation of idols and worship of deity is as per Agamas.

Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran argued that the state government had enacted the rules of 2020 by ignoring the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam and others.

It was further stated that the Rules of 2020 provides for the qualification for the post of Archaka/Poojari ignoring those who have learned mantras and poojas in the gurukul and gained three years experience, would be made ineligible if they do not possess the required qualification given in the Rules of 2020, thereby destroying and wiping out the prevailing customs given in the Agamas.

Petitioners had contended the prescription of qualification of one year certificate course for archaka/poojari was an assault on the rights of the Sivachariyars.

The Petitioner also challenged the provision which allowed for the appointments for the post of Archaka/Poojari by Fit Person. The petitioner's emphasised that such appointments should be made only by the trustees.

State's Defence

Advocate General, R. Shunmugasundaram appearing for the State submitted that the Rules under challenge were applicable not only for the appointment to the post of Archaka/Poojari, but also in regard to other post. It was pointed out that if those Rules are struck down, the appointment of the officers and employees would remain unguided.

It was further submitted that to have better administration of the temple with required staff, the definition of the term '"appointing authority" has been given.

It was submitted that the Rules under challenge did not offend Articles 16(5), 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

Court's Observations & Directions

On the challenge being made to the authority of the Fit Person to appoint Archakas, the Court observed thus "We do not find that the definition of the term "appointing authority" is in any manner offending the constitutional provisions or even the provisions of the Act of 1959. It is no doubt true that the right to make appointment of the Archakas lies with the trustees, but this court cannot be oblivious to the fact that in the absence of the trustees, the affairs of the temple have to be looked after by someone. Only in the absence of trustees or for any reason given in Section 49 of the Act of 1959, a fit person is appointed to exercise the power of trustees."

On the issue of stipulation of eligibility, qualification and age for appointment of Archakas, the Court noted that "We have threadbare analyzed the provisions aforesaid and find that Rules 7 and 9 of the Rules of 2020 cannot be held to be unconstitutional as such, because it is not only applicable to appointment of Archaka/Poojari, but even to other posts. If Rules 7 and 9 of the Rules of 2020 are struck down, it will create a situation where the appointment to other posts than of Archakas would remain unguided and, therefore, the government framed the Rules of 2020 to prescribe the eligibility and qualification of the officer/employee of the temple along with the mode."

However, the Court held that the appointment of Archakas in the temples constructed as per Agamas would be governed by the Agamas and for that the Rule under challenge would not apply.

While considering the challenge to the constitutional validity of Rules 2(g) which provides the definition of the term "Executive Authority", the Court observed thus "We do not find that Rule 2(g) of the Rules of 2020 offends any constitutional provision because Section 28(1) of the Act of 1959 directs the trustees to administer the affairs of the temple in accordance with the terms of the trust or the usage of the institution. Hence, the inclusion of the word "Executive Officer" after the words trustee and fit person would not be any person other than who can administer the religious institution."

The Court rejected the challenge to the constitutional validity of Rules 11 to 15 of the Rules of 2020.

"In the light of the discussion made above, the challenge to Rule 2(c), 2(g), 7, 9, 11 to 15 and 17 of the Rules of 2020 is answered and, accordingly, the appointment of Archaka/Poojari would be governed by the Agama under which the temple or group of temples were constructed. It is, however, with a clarity that this judgment would not be applicable to those temples which are not constructed as per the Agamas.", the Court concluded.

Cause Title- All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment