Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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