Madras High Court to decide if priests can be appointed before Court-appointed committee identifies Agamic and non Agamic temples in T.N.

The Madras High Court has embarked on an exercise to ascertain whether Tamil Nadu’s Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department can be allowed to appoint Archakas (priests) to temples until a committee constituted by the court completes the exercise of identifying Agamic and non Agamic temples in the State.

The Madras High Court has embarked on an exercise to ascertain whether Tamil Nadu’s Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department can be allowed to appoint Archakas (priests) to temples until a committee constituted by the court completes the exercise of identifying Agamic and non Agamic temples in the State.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh has directed Special Government Pleader (HR&CE) N.R.R. Arun Natarajan to produce, by June 19, a copy of the certificates issued by the chief priests certifying that a candidate to the post of Archaka/Sthanigar in a particular temple had been trained in the Agamic practices followed in the temple concerned.

The judge called for a copy of the certificate since the SGP contended that those certificates, issued by the chief priests, would take care of the requirement that only candidates who had been trained in particular Agamic practices get appointed to temples that follow these corresponding practices.

The interim direction was issued while hearing a writ petition filed by Muthu Subramania Gurukal in 2018, challenging a notification issued that year by the Executive Officer of Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple in Salem calling for applications to fill up the post of Archagar/Sthanigar.

Senior counsel R. Singaravelan, representing the writ petitioner, contended that the temple in question was an Agamic temple and hence any appointment of Archagar/Sthanigar could be done only as per customs and usage at the temple. He pointed out that the High Court had, in 2022, constituted a committee to identify Agamic and non Agamic temples.

The counsel also relied upon a 1933 register, maintained under Section 38 of the HR&CE Act, wherein it had been specifically mentioned there was a hereditary right to perform Abhishegam, Archana, Deeparadhana, Puja etc., in the temple and the person performing the same would not be entitled to any Maanyam (remuneration).

The second document relied upon by the counsel, was a judgment in a 1946 civil suit by the Salem District Munsif who dealt with the customs of the Sugavaneswarar Temple and held that nothing in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act would affect the rights of those who were otherwise entitled to certain rights under the customs.