Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
ADI SAIVA SIVACHARIYARGAL NALA SANGAM & ORS. – PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 354, 355, 383 & 384 OF 2006
Decided on : 16-12-2015
(b) Interpretation – Judgment – Constitution Bench in Seshammal, (1972) 2 SCC 11 affirming that the principle of next in line was validly abolished, but appointment of office bearers or servants of the temples are required to be made from a particular denomination/group/sect as mandated by the Agamas – Adithayan, (2002) 8 SCC 106 on the other hand that appointment of Archakas from a particular caste, even if supported by long practice cannot be sustained being in derogation of constitutional values and opposed to public policy or social decency – Exclusion solely on the basis of caste not being an issue in Seshammal, Adithayan does not depart from Seshammal in any way. (Para 26)
(1972) 2 SCC 11; (2002) 8 SCC 106; (1983) 1 SCC 147 – Referred
(c) Words and phrases – Hinduism – Hinduism encompasses wide expanse of beliefs, thoughts and forms of worship without any divergence or friction within itself or amongst its adherents – Image worship a predominant feature. (Para 29, 30)
(1966) 3 SCR 242 – Relied upon
AIR 1915 Madras 363 – Cited with approval
(d) Constitution of India – Articles 25 and 26 – Freedom of religion – Ecclesiastical jurisprudence in India, sans any specific Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, revolves around the exposition of the constitutional guarantees under Articles 25 and 26 – A religious denomination or organization enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of essentiality of rites and ceremonies – No outside authority can interfere with their decision in such matters – Provisions of Article 26(b) – Also subject to provisions in Article 25(2)(b) – Freedom of religion not only confined to beliefs but extends to religious practices also subject to public order, morality and health – Determination of essential religious practices – By Courts – Necessary but should be restricted and restrained. (Para 33, 36)
1954 SCR 1005; AIR 1958 SC 255; AIR 1961 SC 1402; (2004) 12 SCC 770 – Relied upon
84 L Ed 1213 : 310 US 296 (1939); 88 L Ed 1148 : 322 US 78 (1943) – Referred
(e) Constitution of India – Article 16(5) – Protecting appointment of Archakas from a particular denomination, if so required to be made, by relevant Agamas – Would cover an office in a temple also requiring performance of religious functions. (Para 38)
(f) Constitution of India – Article 17 – Prohibiting caste based practices built on superstitions and beliefs that have no rationale or logic – Appointment of Archakas according to Agamas – Not caste based – Article 17 and Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 not attracted instantly – Provisions of Articles 25 and 26 must however be complied with. (Para 40, 41)
(g) Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Section 55(2) – G.O. dated 23.05.2006 – Validity – Exclusion of some and inclusion of a particular segment or denomination for appointment as Archakas not violative of Article 14 if not based on the criteria of caste, birth or any other constitutionally unacceptable parameter – Validity of G.O. dated 23.05.2006 depend on facts in each case of appointment of Archakas. (Para 43)
Facts of the case:
In order to amend and consolidate the law relating to administration and governance of Hindu religious and charitable institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu, the State Legislature has enacted the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Tamil Nadu Act provided that in case where the office holders or servants of a religious institution are required to be filled up on the principle of hereditary succession the person next in line of succession is entitled to succeed.
Section 55 of the Act was amended alongwith other related provisions by the Amendment Act of 1970. By the aforesaid amendment the principle of next in line of succession was abolished. The amendment came to be challenged before Supreme Court.
A Constitution Bench in its judgment in Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 2 SCC 11, while upholding the validity of the amendment, upheld appointment of office bearers or servants of the temples from a particular denomination/group/sect as mandated by the.
G.O. No. 118 dated 23.05.2006 was issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu to the effect that, “Any person who is a Hindu and possessing the requisite qualification and training can be appointed as a Archaka in Hindu temples”. An Ordinance (No. 5 /2006) dated 14.07.2006 followed the aforesaid G.O. seeking to further amend sub-section (2) of Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Act.
The present writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution have been instituted by an Association of Archakas and individual Archakas of Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple of Madurai challenging the G.O. No. 118 dated 23.05.2006.
Finding of the Court:
Writ petitions held maintainable. Adithayan does not depart from Seshammal in any way.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of.
Judgment
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. Religion incorporates the particular belief(s) that a group of people subscribe to. Hinduism, as a religion, incorporates all forms of belief without mandating the selection or elimination of any one single belief. It is a religion that has no single founder; no single scripture and no single set of teachings. It has been described as Sanatan Dharma, namely, eternal faith, as it is the collective wisdom and inspiration of the centuries that Hinduism seeks to preach and propagate. It is keeping in mind the above precepts that we will proceed further.
2. Before highlighting the issues that confronts the Court in the present case the relevant Constitutional provisions in Part III of the Constitution may be taken note of. Article 13, in clear and unequivocal terms, lays down that all laws including pre-constitution laws which are inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III are void. Sub-Article (3) brings within the fold of laws, all Rules, Regulations, Notification, custom and usage having the force of law. While the several provisions of Part III would hardly need to be re-emphasized, specific notice must be had of, in the context of the present case, the provisions contained in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. While Article 25 makes the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate the religion to which a person may subscribe, a fundamental right, the exercise of such right has been made subject to public order, morality and health and also to the other provisions of Part III. Article 25(2)(b) makes it clear that main part of the provisions contained in Article 25 will not come in the way of the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law which provides for social welfare and reform or for throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Similarly, Article 26 while conferring the right on every religious denomination to manage its own affairs makes it clear that the right to manage the affairs of any religious denomination is restricted to matters of religion only.
3. The provisions of Part III, as noted above, therefore makes it amply clear that while the right to freedom of religion and to manage the religious affairs of any denomination is undoubtedly a fundamental right, the same is subject to public order, morality and health and further that the inclusion of such rights in Part III of the Constitution will not prevent the State from acting in an appropriate manner, in the larger public interest, as mandated by the main part of both Articles 25 and 26. Besides, the freedom of religion being subject to the other provisions of Part III, undoubtedly, Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution has to be harmoniously construed with the other provisions contained in Part III.
4. The necessary facts may now be noticed. In order to amend and consolidate the law relating to administration and governance of Hindu religious and charitable institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu, the State Legislature has enacted the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tamil Nadu Act’). A passing reference may be made, at this stage, to Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Act which provided that in case where the office holders or servants of a religious institution are required to be filled up on the principle of hereditary succession the person next in line of succession is entitled to succeed. There were some exceptions to the above rule i.e. where the person next in line is a minor or suffers from some incapacity. The aforesaid provision (Section 55) was amended alongwith other related provisions by the Amendment Act of 1970 which came into force on January 8, 1971. By the aforesaid amendment the principle of next in line of succession was abolished. The amendment came to be challenged before this Court which challenge wa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
