Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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