ADI SAIVA SIVACHARIYARGAL NALA SANGAM & ORS. versus THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU &ANR.

Citation: [2015] 11 S.C.R. 1110 · Decided: 16-12-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 11 S.C.R. i110 
A 
ADI SAIVA SIVACHARIYARGAL NALA SANGAM & 
B 
c 
ORS. 
v. 
THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU &ANR. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 354 of 2006) 
DECEMBER 16, 2015 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 25, 26 -
Appointments of Archakas in temple - Issuance of G. 0. No. 
118 dated 23. 05. 2006 by Tamil Nadu to the effect that, "any 
D person who is a Hindu and possessing the requisite 
qualification and training can be appointed as ·a Archaka in 
Hindu temples - Writ petitions challenging the G. 0. - Held: 
Appointments of Archakas will have to be made in 
accordance with the Agamas, subject to their due 
E identification as well as their conformity with the constitutional 
mandates and the principles - Requirement of constitutional 
conformity is inbuilt and if a custom or usage is outside the 
'protective umbrella afforded and envisaged by Arts 25 and 
26, the law would take its own course - Constitutional 
F legitimacy must supersede all religious beliefs or practices 
- Validity of the G 0. would depend on the facts of each case 
of appointment - What is prescribed by one particular or a 
set of Agamas for a solitary or a group of temples, would be 
determinative of the issue - Exclusion of some and ;nclusion 
G of a particular segment or denomination for appointment as 
Archakas would not violate Art 14 so Jong such inclusion/ 
exclusion is not based on the criteria of caste, birth or any 
other constitutionally unacceptable parameter -
Determination of th.e contours of a claimed custom or usage 
H 
1110 
ADI SAIVA SIVACHARIYARGAL NALA SANGAM v. 
1111 
GOVERNMENT OFT. N. 
would be imperative and in that light the validity of the said A 
G. 0. would be decided in each case of appointment of 
Archakas whenever such issue is raised- Tami/.Nadu Hindu 
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 -
G.O.No.118 dt 23.05.2006. 
B 
Disposing of the writ petitions, the Court, 
HELD: 1.1 Appointments of Archakas will have to 
be made in accordance with the Agamas, subject to their 
due identification as well as their conformity with the c 
Constitutional mandates and the principles. [Para 44] 
[1153-B] 
1.2 The rights guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26, are 
circumscribed and _are to be enjoyed within 0 
constitutionally permissible parameters. Often occasions 
will arise when it may become necessary to determine 
whether a belief or a practice claimed and asserted is a 
fundamental part of the religious practice of a group or 
denomination making such a claim before embarking E 
upon the required adjudication. A decision on such 
claims becomes the duty of the Constitutional Court. It 
is neither an easy nor an enviable task that the courts 
are called to perform. Performance of such tasks is not 
enjoined in the court by virtue of any ecclesiastical F 
jurisdiction conferred on it but in view of its role as the 
Constitutional arbiter. Any apprehension that the 
determination by the court of an essential religious 
practice itself negatives the freedoms guaranteed by 
Articles 25 and 26 will have to be dispelled on the G 
touchstone of constitutional necessity. Without such a 
determination there can be no effective adjudication 
whether the claimed right it is in conformity with public 
order, morality and health and in accord with the 
undisputable and unquestionable notions of social H 
1112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A welfare and reforms. A just balance can always be made 
by holding that the exercise of judicial power to 
determine essential religious practices, though always 
available being an inherent power to protect the 
guarantees u/Articles 25, 26, the exercise thereo_f must 
B always be restricted and restrained.[Para 36][1147-F-H; 
1148-A-C] 
1.3 A plain reading of Article 16(5), fortified by the 
debates that had taken place in the Constituent 
C Assembly, protects the appointment of Archakas from a 
particular denomination, if so required to be made, by 
the Agamas holding the field. The debates discloses that 
the suggestion that the operation of Article 16(5) should 
be restricted to appointment in offices connected with 
o administration of a religious institution was negatived. 
The exception in Article 16(5), therefore, would cover an 
office in a temple which also requires performance of 
religious functions. [Para 38][1148-F-H] 
E 
1.4 It would be, incorrect, if not self defeating, to 
take too pedantic an approach at resolution eit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.