High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
V.S. Sivakumar & Another
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Dept.
W.P. Nos. 15791 of 1999 and 16932 of 1998 and W.M.P. Nos. 23847 of 1998 and 25575 of 1998 in respective W.Ps.
Decided on : 19-03-2008
Archana - Hindu Religion - HR&CE Act 1959 - The court considered whether allowing archanas to be performed in Tamil at the request of the devotees would offend the right to profess Hindu religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The court discussed the concept of Hindu religion, the use of Tamil in religious practices, and the historical context of Tamil usage in religious literature. The court emphasized the freedom of choice for devotees to seek archanas in Tamil or Sanskrit, without replacing traditional practices.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to prevent the use of Tamil in archanas and rituals in Hindu temples, claiming it violated the traditional mode of worship. The State allowed archanas to be performed in Tamil at the request of devotees, leading to the petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the use of Tamil in addition to Sanskrit for archanas did not violate the right to profess Hindu religion. It emphasized the freedom of choice for devotees and rejected the petitioners' claim that Tamil language was not a recognized form of worship.
Issues: The main issue was whether the use of Tamil in archanas and rituals in Hindu temples violated the traditional mode of worship and the right to profess Hindu religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the choice of language for archanas should be left to the devotees, emphasizing the freedom of worship and rejecting the petitioners' claim that Tamil was not a recognized form of worship.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. The court emphasized the freedom of choice for devotees and rejected the petitioners' claim that the use of Tamil in archanas violated the traditional mode of worship.
(K. Chandru, J.)
The short question that arises for consideration in these two writ petitions is as to whether the action of the official respondents in providing for archanas to be performed in Tamil at the request of the devotees in addition to the existing practice of reciting archanas in Sanskrit, would offend the right to profess Hindu religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
2. In W.P. No. 15791 of 1998, the petitioner claims to be the President of the Hindu Temple Protection Committee and seeks for a direction to prevent the respondents State of Tamil Nadu and the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (for short, HR&CE) Department from interfering in any manner with the ceremonies, poojas and mode of performance, daily rituals of temples by customary traditional mode of worship.
3. In W.P. No. 16932 of 1998, the petitioner, a hereditary archaka of the temple at Uthirakosamangai, Ramnad District, seeks for a prayer to forbear the respondent State and the subordinates from implementing the Tamil language in performance of poojas / archanas in the temple contrary to the Adamic principles.
4. In both the cases, notice of motion was ordered and counter affidavits have been filed by the State. In view of the interconnectivity between the writ petitions, the two writ petitions were taken up for hearing together.
5. Heard the arguments of Mr. R. Venkatakrishnan and Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 15791 and 16932 of 1998 respectively and Mr. M.R. Murugesan, learned Special Government Pleader for HR&CE and other impleaded parties and have perused the records. Though the matter was heard quite sometime back, since one of us [K. Chandru, J.] was posted at the Madurai Bench during the second half of 2007, the orders could not be pronounced earlier.
6. Before we proceed to determine the issue on hand, it is necessary to first understand the concept of Hindu religion.
7. When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one God; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.
8. In defining these concepts, Dr. Radhakrishnan, in his book on Indian Philosophy (Vol. I - page 48) wrote as follows:
"Though philosophic concepts and principles evolved by different Hindu thinkers and philosophers varied in many ways and even appeared to conflict with each other in some particulars, they all had reverence for the past and accepted the Vedas as sole foundation of the Hindu philosophy. Naturally enough, it was realised by Hindu religion from the very beginning of its career that truth was many-sided and different views contained different aspects of truth, which no one could fully express. This knowledge inevitably bred a spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and appreciate the opponents point of view. That is how "the several views set forth in India in regard to the vital philosophic concepts are considered to be the branches of the self-same tree. The short cuts and blind alleys are somehow reconciled with the main road of advance to the truth.
9. In this context, we have to see, whether the attempt of the petitioners to bring in agamic injunctions against the authorities to permit the pooja / rituals to be performed in Tamil in addition to the existing practice, that too, only at the request of the worshippers / devotees, can be countenanced. Agamas are Hindu scriptures laying down the separate theological disciplines and doctrines for the worship. Agamas guide the
1. His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami
8. Sri Venkataramana Devaru and others v. State of Mysore AIR 1958 SC 255
10. A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P. and others 1996 (9) SCC 548
12. N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others 2002 (8) SCC 106
14. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and another v. C.K. Rajan and others 2003 (7) SCC 546
6. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments
9. Pannalal Bansilal Pitti and others v. State of A.P. and another 1996 (2) SCC 498
13. Bhuri Nath v. State of J&K 1997 (2) SCC 745
3. Sarla Mudgal (Smt.), President
7. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi and others v. State of Bombay and others AIR 1954 SC 388
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.