SESHAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these 12 petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution filed by the hereditary Archakas and Mathadhipatis of some ancient Hindu Public temples in Tamil Nadu the validity of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act, 1970) is called in question, principally, on the ground that it violates their freedom of religion secured to them under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The validity of the Amendment Act had been also impugned on the ground that it interfered with certain other fundamental rights of the petitioners but that case was not pressed at the time of the hearing.

(2.) THE temples with which we are concerned are Saivite and Vaishnative temples in Tamil Nadu. Writ Petitions 70, 83, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443 and 444/71 are filed by the Archakas and Writ Petitions 13 and 14/1971 are filed by the Mathadhipatis to whose Math some temples are attached. As common questions were involved in all these petitions, arguments were addressed principally in Writ Petitions 13/1971 and 442/1971, and we are assured by counsel for both sides that they cover the points involved in all the other petitions.

(3.) POWER to make rules was given to Government be section 116 (2) (xxiii) and it was open to the Government to make rules providing for the qualifications to be possessed by the Officers and servants for appointment to non-hereditary offices in religious institutions, the qualifications to be possessed by hereditary servants for succession to office and the conditions of service of all such officers and servants. Under this rule making power the State Government made the Madras Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964. Under these rules an Archak or Pujari of the deity came under the definition of 'Ulthurai servant'. 'Ulthurai servant' is defined as a servant whose duties relate mainly to the performance or rendering assistance in the performance of pujas, rituals and other services to the deity, the recitation of mantras, vedas, prabandas thevarams and similar invocations and the performance of duties connected with such performance or recitation. Rule 12 provided that every 'Ulthurai servant', whether hereditary or non-hereditary whose duty it is to perform pujas and recite mantras, vedas, prabandams, thevarams and other invocations shall, before succeeding, or appointment to an office, obtain a certificate of fitness for performing his office, from the head of an institution imparting instructions in Agamas and ritualistic matters and recognised by the Commissioner, by general or special order or from the head of a math recognised by the Commissioner, by general or special order, or such other person as may be designated by the Commissioner, from time to time, for the purpose. By this rule the proper worship in the temple was secured whether the Archaka or Pujari or not. Section 107 of the Act emphasized that nothing contained in the Act shall, save as otherwise provided in section 106 and in clause (2) of Article 25 of the Constitution, be deemed to confer any power or impose any duty in contravention of the rights conferred on any religious denomination or any section thereof by Article 26 of the Constitution. Section 106 deals with the removal of discrimination in the matter of distribution of prasadam or theretham to the Hindu worshippers. That was a reform in the right direction and there is no challenge to it. The Act as a whole, it is conceded, did not interfere with the religious usages and practices of the temples.