Under the Hindu Religious Institutions Employees 2020 Rules, trustees, a fit person, or the Executive Officer who is in charge can appoint an archaka for the temple.
M Mathi Murugan, a resident of Mangalanadu North Village in Aranthangi Taluk approached the Court to allow him to worship at Shri Mangala Nayaki Amman Temple.
In a landmark judgement, the Madras High Court on Monday, 26 June, ruled that caste-based pedigree won’t play a role in appointment of archakas (priests) as long as the candidates are qualified on all parameters.
The high court ruling came on a petition that claimed “hereditary right” to appointment as a priest.
The court added that caste-based identity won’t play a role if the person selected satisfies all requirements, while allowing the executive officer of the Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy temple in Salem district to appoint a person to the position of archaka/sthanika for the temple.
Disposing of a petition filed by Muthu Subramania Gurukkal, priest of the Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy temple, Justice N Anand Venkatesh held that that the petitioner cannot stake his claim as a “sthanika“, or resident priest, by invoking hereditary right in view of the judgement of the apex court in the Seshammal vs State of Tamil Nadu case.
Highlighting Seshammal’s case — particularly paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgement — the Judge Venkatesh stated that the apex court had made it clear that in a denominational temple, the appointment of an archaka will be made only from the specified denomination, sect, or group in accordance with the prescriptions of the Agamas governing that particular temple.
“This exception was carved out by the apex court in Seshammal’s case, while categorically holding that the position of an archaka can never be claimed as a hereditary right,” the judge stated.
“In the considered view of this court, it is always left open to the trustees or a fit person to appoint an archaka/sthanika in Agamic temples (where there is no doubt on the Agama that governs the temple) by ensuring that the archaka/sthanika is well-versed, properly trained, and qualified to perform the pooja as per the requirements under the Agama.”
At the risk of repetition, the high court made it made abundantly clear that the “pedigree based on caste will have no role to play in the appointment of an archaka, if the person so selected otherwise satisfies the requirements”.
Making it clear that appointments can be made under the Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) 2020 Rules by trustees, a fit person, or the executive officer who is in charge of the affairs of the temple, the court held, “Thus, the advertisement issued by the executive officer under the 2020 Rules cannot be questioned, on the ground that he is an officer of the department (Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department).”
Further, the judge directed the executive officer of the temple to issue an advertisement and an archaka/sthanika shall be appointed for Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy temple and the petitioner shall be permitted to perform the poojas till the appointment of an archaka/sthanika.
It is also left open to the petitioner to participate in the selection.
On 18, January 2018, the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department issued an advertisement in the newspapers calling for applications to fill up the position of archakas/sthanikas at the Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy temple in Salem.
Aggrieved by this, Muthu Subramania Gurukkal challenged the advertisement in the high court, stating that he hails from the family of Sivachariyars and that their family has been performing the poojas from time immemorial.
He stated that the position of sthanika was occupied as a hereditary right in the temple. Accordingly, after his grandfather, he took over the position as sthanika and was performing the poojas.
He argued that the customs and usage were the basis for occupying the position as sthanika and every time there is a change in the sthanika, a letter of intimation used to be given to the authorities, who would grant approval subsequently.
It was also contended that the impugned advertisement infringes upon the hereditary right of the petitioner and others who are rendering their services as per the customs and usage in the line of succession.
It was also submitted that the temple in question is an Agamic temple and, hence, any appointment of an archaka/sthanika can be done only as per the customs and usage, and the qualifications that are prescribed in the notification are completely de hors, ie outside the scope of, the requirements under the relevant Agama.
May 18, 2024
May 18, 2024
May 18, 2024
May 18, 2024
May 16, 2024
May 16, 2024
