Caste Has No Role To Play In Appointment Of Temple Priests: Madras High Court

“In the considered view of this Court, it is always left open to the Trustees/Fit Person to appoint Archakas/Sthanikam in Agamic temples (where there is no doubt on the Agama that governs the temple) by ensuring that the Archakas/Sthanikam are well-versed, properly trained and qualified to perform the pooja as per the requirements under the Agama. At the risk of repetition, it is made abundantly clear that the pedigree based on caste will have no role to play in the appointment of Archaka if the person so selected otherwise satisfies the requirements,” the court observed.

Justice Anand Venkatesh made the above observations on a plea filed by Muthu Subramania Gurukkal challenging an advertisement issued by the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE, and the Executive Officer of Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, calling for applications to fill up the position of Archakas/Sthanikam at Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, Salem.

Gurukkal had assailed this advertisement on the ground that he had a heredity right to hold the position of the Sthanikam. However, he also raised other grounds when the court said that this position has been cleared by the Supreme Court in Seshammal’s case wherein the court had held that appointment of Archaka was a secular act and that it could not be claimed as a heredity right.

In his additional grounds, Gurukkal contended that the Executive Officer cannot appoint Archaka/Sthanikam since he was an officer belonging to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. He also submitted that as per an order made by the division bench of the Madras High Court in All India Adi Saiva Sivachariargal Seva Sangam's case, a committee has to be appointed to identify temples belonging to Agama and until such identification, there is no question of proceeding with the appointment. He also questioned the certificate courses that are being recognized by the HR& CE Department and submitted that Agamas and Vedhas can not be learned by undergoing a certificate course.

It was submitted that the larger question of religious practice/faith is sub-judice before the Apex Court in Kantararu Rajeevaru case, and that, the judgment of the Apex Court must be awaited before making any appointment of Archakas/Sthanikam.

The Special Government pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the division bench of the Madras High Court had not prohibited the appointment of Archakas/Sthanigam till the exercise is completed by the Committee and thus it is always open to making appointments in line with the earlier direction i.e., as per Agamas in an agamic temple.

Going through the division bench order, Justice Venkatesh noted that whenever an appointment is made without following Agamas, an aggrieved person can challenge the same. The court also noted that the division bench had not observed that the Trustees or the Fit persons can not make appointments till the committee finalizes the report. 

“In the instant case, it is not necessary to wait for the report of the Committee since there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the subject temple is governed by Karanagama. A confusion may arise only in cases where there is no clarity as to whether the temple is an Agamic or Non Agamic temple and in case it is an Agamic temple, to which Agama it belongs. It is not necessary for this Court to get into this issue in the above writ petition where there is no dispute on the Agama that governs the subject temple,” the court said.

The court also noted that the Trustees/Fit Person do not have to wait for the orders of the Apex Court in the Kantaru Rajeevaru case as it would result in confusions.

“If such appointments are not made awaiting the orders in the review petitions, it will result in confusion. There may be many temples where Archakas are wanted and those temples cannot go without the Archaka to perform the pooja just because the review petitions are pending before the Apex Court,” the court added.

The court also disagreed with the petitioner’s contention that the Executive Officer, being an employee of the Department, cannot make appointments. The court noted that the division bench in its order had clearly observed that an Executive Officer who performs the functions of the Trustee and the Fit Person is covered under the definition of Executive Authority and thus has power to make appointments.

It disposed of the plea with a direction to the Executive Officer to issue an advertisement in line with the observations, specifying requirements under the Agama and further permitting Gurukkal to perform the poojas till such appointment is made.

Case Title: Muthu Subramania Gurukkal v The Commissioner, HR&CE Department and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 175

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.R.Singaravelan, SC for Mr.M.Muruganantham

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader (HR&CE)