LexSESHAMMAL & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF TAMILNADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
SESJIAMMAL 4 OlilS. ETC. ETC.
Y.
srATE OF T~MIL NADU
March 14, 1972
8l$
{S. M. SIKIU, C.J., A. N. G~tOVER, A. N, RAY D G p
AND M. H. BEG, JJ.]
• .
.
ALEKAR.
The Tc.-mil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitabl
End
(Tamil Nadu 12 of 1959) a.l' amerrde-d by Anuntling ~ct 0 /'i<;nlf/ls ~g~
55, .56 and J1.6-J:!ereditary right of sc<c,:ession ro offictt of A::i.~
abohrTu!d-JJ VJolat•ve of Arts. 25 and 26 of Constitution.
Section 55 t:>f the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious . an.d Ch:uitablc Ell·
dowments Act, 195~, gave the trusree of a temple the power to appoint
the officr.l holders_ or. servan~ of the temple and also provided that where
the of!ice or s.erYJce IS hereditary, tlle perwn ne:tt in the lice o( succession
.shall be entitled t1> sw:.cce.d. In Ollly CXQ:pti9Q.il ~as.c:s the trustee was
s:ntitled Lo &part from the principle of ncl!t·in·the line of sua:cs.sioo, but
even iO, the trustee was under an oblijption to appoint a fit ~rson to
perform the service after having due: r~gard"to the dJ.iau of the mem-
bers of the family.
Section
116(2) (xxiii) of the Act
gave power to
the Government to make rules
pro'Viding for tbe qualification.• 1o bo
pos£-essed by the ~~rs ~U~d ~rvant.s and their conditions o{ oetvio:.
The State GovemmeQt tram.e.d tho Madras Hindu Religious lnstir.wi.oos
(()fliul'$ and Servanr&) Service RuLes, 1964. Rul.c 12 provided that .lLil
An:J}ab, whetb,er bm:ditacy. or non-hereditary whose. duty it L$ !.0 perlorm
Pujai, shall, before succee$1111g t.o the offi~ or ajlpOmtJneot. to dJoe office,
obt;.in a certificate 0( fune&.$ C.or perfQrmmg the dulles of hiS office from
the! head ,:X ill i~Mion imprtttiog instrtu:ti?DS in Apmas cr !Tom the
~ad of i math recognised by the CommiSS!oru:r or from sudl olDer
pef'50il ~ may ~ dcsiiWit.cd by Jh.e Comrmsslon.er.
The 1\J:i Wall ~
l!y the Am«oding Mt· of tno. The Amald·
~ ~
,did away ..-jj:.b t.Q,e heco~dilary ri~ of su=~.on to tbe ~b
~f
.Acchalca. The peti!ioaers ..,ho were Ar.cbalqw of S;uvue and Y~~
temples and Mathadbipatis to wllose Maths LefJIP~S :ll'e J.Ullebed fi.W
~ 5
p:titions in ~is Court contending tha.t the amendment! v•olated ArtS. -
•1111 26 pi tl)(i ~stirutiop .
Pia m~i.Q.a 4le pctiliPna.
JiEJ,..D : (1) Tbe Pr¢ecijdon ~>f ~~ ~ie,~dth;; ~!te~ ~'1ra:
is not limited to matt~s of
octr1noe or
'
·
ull1':Ultee
for
done in p~USuance of religion. IIDd tbere~ore ~nt~~ •ol religi.cn. )Vbat
rituals anJ observa~s ~tc. which ~
-~ ~e~!igi~' pracliee ba.s !JJ be
~1tu1n an 1'5~t!tial part of a '~· Sl
the doctrine of a parocuhr
deJ:ided by .the Courta with r:eJ'l:r~nce to ckd by the community .u J1
religion lndudinjl prnctices wlucb are repr
PJ!I1 of iu religion. {827 B-Dj
196
,
1
&mar l}'rJM TaJrrr Bal/uddirr 8alub v. Th# Stare PI po,rbay, l
~
&up,t. 2 S.C.R. 496, rt'fCI'red to.
.
~A~
m With tile --'lilbii.Wuc,nt 9l fl:IJl tW .,-.:wbe ~~Aga8lJ.$. llws
je tfot !OJJW)Pf, ~j~
QB ntiJalf i¥ele COIJll) the ~
'I'(Of~jppets .aU
(j)
Tilmll ~~Vf • f4NI> !Qjsl ,JlSpec.l, W _,li.aJ;t
I
\ l !
i
I I I
I I I
I
I
I· I
I i
I l
i
,_. J-
EME COURT REPORTj
SUPR
·
[1972] 3 S.C.R..
S16
Deity from pOllution, deftlement or desecration
preserve the image C>~ th~ay take place in a. variety o~ ways and according
Pollution or d~ecrat!on ge becomes defile& Jf there
1.! any departure or
to the Agarnas, an Jma latin to worship.
.~er, in all the temple~ in
violation of the roles re crate~ the Agamas JDSJSted that only the qualified
which iroages are ~~d the sanctum sanctorum after observing certain
Arc~~a ~all step Jnsl ~
Agam~. Hence the A~chaka of such a tem-
disclp~ !IDJ'?Sed ~ficient in the Jit"uals. appro~nate to the _worship of
ple, besi.des bemg} must also belong to. a particular denommation; be..
the part1cular hDelcl y,of ·a different do;nom1nanoo would defile the image
cause an Arc a a
·
E-Gl
by hi; touch. [825 F-H; 826
s . y~ kataramana Devaru v. The State of Mysore, U958] S.C.R.
895 nn· 'Holin~s Perla Kovil Kelvl A.ppean
Thiruvenkato Ramanuja
Pedda ;fyyangcrlu V arlu v. Prath ivaJhi Blray~f;mam Venka1acharlu, 7J
I .A. 156 and Mohan Lalji v. Gotdhan LolJI Maharaf, 35 Allahabad
P. C. 283, referred to,
(3) Tb:: hereditary principle in the appointrr>..ent of an Archaka had
been adopted and accepted from antiquity and bad also been .fu!Jy recog-
nised in the unamended s. 55. But the change effected by the am~nU.
ment to a. 55, namely, the aboliticm of the principlExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.