Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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