Supreme Court Judgement on Tamil Nadu Hindu temples
In its December 2015 judgement on appointment of archakas (priests) in Tamil Nadu Hindu temples, the Supreme Court held that appointments should be based on the rules enshrined in Agamas or ancient Hindu rituals but at the same time the rules for appointments should not violate Article 17 or any other provision of Part III (fundamental rights) of the Constitution or even the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
Background
The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act was enacted in 1959. It allowed for the hereditary appointment of priests in Hindu temples. In 1971, the Tamil Nadu government amended the act by abolishing hereditary appointments and allowing anyone irrespective of caste to become priests in Hindu temples. The amendment was challenged in the Seshammal case. In the Seshammal judgement (1972), the court abolished the changes in the law. It had also abolished the hereditary appointments of priests. However, the court allowed the appointments based on the rules of Agamas governing the temple. Later, in Adhitayan case (2002), the Supreme Court reiterated that caste cannot be a factor in appointments to religious positions.
In 2006, an ordinance was passed by the Tamil Nadu government to allow persons with requisite qualification and training, irrespective of their caste, to become priests. It was challenged again in the Supreme Court by a group of priests from Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple of Madurai. Their argument was that the appointment of an archaka has to be based on the Agamas which govern particular temples and any deviation from the age-old customs results in infringement of their fundamental rights provided under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Tamil Nadu government argued in favour of social reforms and said there is nothing wrong with a non-Brahmin becoming priest if they had trained with temple shastras.
[table id=177 /]Verdict by the Supreme Court
In its judgement, Supreme Court iterated that the fundamental right to freedom of religion is not confined to doctrines and beliefs but extends to “essential practices” done in pursuance of that faith. With this, SC mandated that the appointment of archakas (priests) as per the restrictions prescribed by the age-old Agamas (treatises) is not a violation of the right to equality; however, these treatises should necessarily conform to constitutional mandates. It observed that inclusion or exclusion as per the Agama Shastras should not be based on the criteria of caste, birth or any other constitutionally unacceptable parameters.
