Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10620 OF 2013

Dr. Subramanian Swamy

…Appellant

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

…Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10621 OF 2013

Sabhayanagar Temple

…Appellant

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

…Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10622 OF 2013

T. Sivaraman & Ors.

…Appellants

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

…Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

Page 2

JUDGMENT

1.

All these appeals have been filed against the impugned

judgment and order dated 15.9.2009 passed in Writ Appeal No.181 of

2009 by the High Court of Madras affirming the judgment and order

dated 2.2.2009 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition

No.18248 of 2006 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner – Podhu

Dikshitars to administer the Temple.

In Civil Appeal No. 10620/2013, the appellant has raised the

issue of violation of the constitutional rights protected under Article

26 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as

‘Constitution’) in relation to the claim by Podhu Dikshitars (Smarthi

Brahmins) to administer the properties of the Temple in question

dedicated to Lord Natraja. The same gains further importance as it

also involves the genesis of such pre-existing rights even prior to the

commencement of the Constitution and the extent of exercise of State

control under the statutory provisions of The Madras Hindu Religious

and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Act 1951’) as well as the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act

1959’).

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

Civil Appeal No. 10621/2013 is on behalf of Podhu Dikshitars

claiming the same relief and Civil Appeal No. 10622/2013 has been

filed by the appellants supporting the claim of the appellant in Civil

Appeal No. 10621/2013.

2.

For convenience in addressing the parties and deciding the

appeals, we have taken Civil Appeal No. 10620/2013 as the leading

appeal. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal are as

under:

A.

That Sri Sabhanayagar Temple at Chidambaram (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘Temple’) is in existence since times immemorial

and had been administered for a long time by Podhu Dikshitars (all

male married members of the families of Smarthi Brahmins who

claim to have been called for the establishment of the Temple in the

name of Lord Natraja).

B.

The State of Madras enacted the Madras Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act

1927’), which was repealed by the Act 1951. A Notification

No.G.O.Ms.894 dated 28.8.1951 notifying the Temple to be subjected

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

to the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act 1951 was issued. The said

notification enabled the Government to promulgate a Scheme for the

management of the Temple.

C.

In pursuance to the same, the Hindu Religious Endowments

Board, Madras (hereinafter called the ‘Board’) appointed an

Executive Officer for the management of the Temple in 1951 vide

order dated 28.8.1951 etc.

D.

The Dikshitars, i.e. respondent no.6 and/or their predecessors in

interest challenged the said orders dated 28.8.1951 and 31.8.1951 by

filing Writ Petition nos. 379-380 of 1951 before the Madras High

Court which were allowed vide judgment and order dated 13.12.1951

quashing the said orders, holding that the Dikshitars constituted a

‘religious denomination’ and their position vis-à-vis the Temple was

analogous to muttadhipati of a mutt; and the orders impugned therein

were violative of the provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution.

E.

Aggrieved, the State of Madras filed appeals bef