Temple's Abodes Of Deities, Not Training Centres: Madras HC Restrains State From Conducting 'Knowledge Training' Under Temples' Chief Priests
The Madras High Court has restrained the state government from conducting practical training under a Chief Priest for candidates who have completed courses from Archakar Training Schools run by temples under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. During the course of the proceedings, Justice S Srimathy of the Madurai bench remarked that temples are...
The Madras High Court has restrained the state government from conducting practical training under a Chief Priest for candidates who have completed courses from Archakar Training Schools run by temples under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.
During the course of the proceedings, Justice S Srimathy of the Madurai bench remarked that temples are abodes of deities where devotees come to offer worship and should not be treated as training centers or laboratories.
“Even the Private Agama Training Centres like that of the Pillayarpatti, Thiruparankundram will not conduct training inside the “Temple”. Therefore the prescribed training inside the temple under the Senior Archaka (chief priest) is against the Agamas. The temples are Abodes of the deities and devotees visits temples to worship the deities. Hence temples cannot be treated as training centres or laboratories,” the court said.
The Tourism, Culture, and Religious Endowment Department passed a Government Order dated July 27, 2023, stating that candidates who have completed certificate courses from the Archakar Training Schools run by the temples under the control of the HR&CE Department will be sent for one-year training under the senior Archakas/ Gurukals to gain practical knowledge in Agamas. These trainees were to be given a stipend of Rs. 8,000 during the period of training.
The petitioners, President and Joint Secretary of the Thirukovil Sudhanthira Paribalana Sthalatharkal Sabha had challenged this Government Order in the present petitions alleging that the GO was illegal and contemptuous since it did not prescribe the Agamas and rituals of the temples which was mandatory as per the previous orders of the High Court.
The Sabha further argued that at least 6 to 14 years were required for a person to be trained in Agamas, Vedas, Upanishads, and other necessary rituals, and in the guide of training to acquire basic knowledge, the state could not dispense with or ignore the essential qualification.
The Sabha contended that both the Supreme Court and the High Court had already held that Agamic temples would be covered by the rituals and customs while the impugned GO is silent on the syllabus with regard to which agama, the knowledge was to be imparted. Thus, the Sabha argued that there was an attempt to deviate from the Agamas.
Though the state challenged the maintainability of the petition stating that it was a service matter and thus an association could not maintain the petition, the court rejected the argument. The court observed that the Sabha was not an association of persons directly employed by the HR&CE department as government services, nor were they seeking any appointment against a post.
It noted that the Sabha had only challenged the ineligibility of persons to undergo training in Agama temples and were only advocating the Shastric rites to which the deity of the temple governed by Agama Shasta was entitled. Thus, the court observed that the petition was not a service matter.
The court also observed that the impugned GO interfered with the regular practice followed in the Agamic temple. The court added that by providing the stipend to the trainees out of the funds of the temple, the GO was indirectly issuing appointment orders dehors of Agama.
Thus, the court opined that the GO was against the dictum laid down by the court specifically providing that the appointment of Archakas in agamic temples should be according to Agamas.
Noting that the matter was already pending before the Supreme Court, the court directed the authorities to act as per the orders to be passed by the Apex Court and not conduct any training till then.
Counsel for Petitioners: Mr.RSingaravelan Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Selvanayagam
Counsel for Respondents: Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram Advocate General assisted by Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader and Ms.A.G.Shakeena Government Advocate, Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Muthugeethayan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
Case Title: Sri Subramaniyaswami, Thirukovil Sundhanthirai Paribalana Sthalatharkal Sabha v. The Commissioner, HR&CE
Case No: W.P.(MD).No.22347 of 2023