Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Appointments of an Archaka in Agamic Temples cannot be claimed as a hereditary right : Madras HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment delivered on June 26, 2023, the Madras High Court has ruled that the appointment of Archakas (priests) in Agamic temples should be governed solely by the Agamas, overriding the applicability of Rules 7 and 9 of the 2020 Rules. The court emphasized that the position of an Archaka cannot be claimed as a hereditary right, as previously established by the Supreme Court. This ruling comes as a significant clarification in the ongoing debate surrounding the authority and qualifications required for appointing priests in Hindu temples.

High court stated, "The appointment of an Archaka in an Agamic temple will be governed only by the Agamas and not by Rules 7 and 9 of the 2020 Rules." The judgment further affirmed that the appointment authority rests with the Trustees or the Fit Person, emphasizing that the Department cannot undertake this responsibility. The court also clarified that the appointment of Archakas in Agamic temples can be made even before the Committee finalizes its report, provided there is no dispute regarding the Agama governing the temple.

Additionally, the court addressed the issue of the Executive Officer's authority to issue advertisements and appoint Archakas. It held that the Executive Officer, who oversees the temple's affairs, falls within the definition under Rule 2(g) of the 2020 Rules and can make appointments under the said rules. Therefore, the advertisement issued by the Executive Officer under the 2020 Rules cannot be questioned on the grounds of the officer being a Department employee.

Moreover, the court stressed that the qualifications prescribed under the 2020 Rules need not be considered when appointing Archakas in Agamic temples. Instead, the appointment should be solely based on the requirements outlined in the Agama. The court dismissed the argument that Vedas and Agamas cannot be learned through short-term courses, stating that such courses are not necessary for the appointment process.

Furthermore, the court clarified that appointments can proceed even if review petitions are pending before the Supreme Court, to prevent any confusion or delays in the functioning of temples that require Archakas. This direction ensures that temples in need of priests do not remain without their services during the pendency of review petitions.

The judgment also emphasized that the Division Bench's ruling in the All India Adi Saiva Sivachariargal Seva Sangam's case, which declares that the appointment of Archakas should be governed by the Agamas and not by Rules 7 and 9 of the 2020 Rules, remains binding on the Trustees and the Fit Person. The court directed that advertisements for the appointment of Archakas/Sthanikam in Agamic temples should align with the observations made in the judgment. The appointed Committee of experts should verify that the selected individuals meet the prescribed requirements of the Agama.

Date of Decision: June 26, 2023

Muthu Subramania Gurukkal vs The Commissioner

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Muthu-Subramania-Gurukkal-Vs-Commissionere-Mad.-HC-26-June-2023.pdf"]

Latest Legal News