Judgment

PALEKAR, J.:- In these 12 petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution filed by the hereditary Archakas and Mathadhipatis of some ancient Hindu Public temples in Tamil Nadu the validity of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act, 1970) is called in question, principally, on the ground that it violates their freedom of religion secured to them under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The validity of the Amendment Act had been also impugned on the ground that it interfered with certain other fundamental rights of the petitioners but that case was not pressed at the time of the hearing.

2. The temples with which we are concerned are Saivite and Vaishnative temples in Tamil Nadu. Writ Petitions 70, 83, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443 and 444/71 are filed by the Archakas and Writ Petitions 13 and 14/1971 are filed by the Mathadhipatis to whose Math some temples are attached. As common questions were involved in all these petitions, arguments were addressed principally in Writ Petitions 13/1971 and 442/1971, and we are assured by counsel for both sides that they cover the points involved in all the other petitions.

3. The State Legislature of Tamil Nadu enacted The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 being (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959) hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act. It came into force on December 2, 1959. It was an Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to the administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu. It applied to all Hindu religious public institutions and endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu and repealed several acts which had previously governed the administration of Hindu Public Religious Institutions. It is sufficient to say here that the provisions of the Principal Act applied to the temples in the present petitions and the petitioners have no complaint against any of its provisions.

4. Section 55 of that Act provided for the appointment of officeholders and servants in such temples and Section 56 provided for the punishment of office-holders and servants. Section 55, broadly speaking, gave the trustee of the temple the power to appoint the office-holders or servants of the temple and also provided that where the office or service is hereditary the person next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed. In only exceptional cases the trustee was entitled to depart from the principle of next-in-the-line of succession, but even so, the trustee was under an obligation to appoint a fit person to perform the functions of the office or perform the service after having due regard to the claims of the members of the family.

5. Power to make rules was given to Government be section 116 (2) (xxiii) and it was open to the Government to make rules providing for the qualifications to be possessed by the Officers and servants for appointment to non-hereditary offices in religious institutions, the qualifications to be possessed by hereditary servants for succession to office and the conditions of service of all such officers and servants. Under this rule making power the State Government made the Madras Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964. Under these rules an Archak or Pujari of the deity came under the definition of Ulthurai servant . Ulthurai servant is defined as a servant whose duties relate mainly to the performance or rendering assistance in the performance of pujas, rituals and other services to the deity, the recitation of mantras, vedas, prabandas thevarams and similar invocations and the performance of duties connected with such performance or recitation. Rule 12 provided that every Ulthurai servant , whether hereditary or non-hereditary whose duty it is to perform pujas and recite mantras, vedas, prabandams, thevarams and other invocations shall, before succ