Selecting Temple Pontiff Is Purely Religious Function, HR&CE Dept Has No Right To Appoint Or Approve Appointment: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice P Murugan held that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department did not have a right to appoint the temple pontiff or to approve the appointment.

“The selection of a Pontiff is a purely religious function and can never be construed as a secular or administrative act (vide Ma.Gouthaman Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2012 SCC Online Mad 4201). Therefore, in the very nature of things, the department cannot claim the right to appoint or even to approve the appointment,” the court said.

The court added that a Jeeyar (spiritual leader who manages the temple) was only a servant of the diety and not an employee of the temple. The bench said that the Jeeyar would not come under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the department, unless in cases of power misuse.

“We reiterate that the Jeeyar is only the servant of the deity. He cannot be considered as the employee of the temple. His status cannot be reduced to that of a temple staff. He will not come under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the trustees / fit person. Of course, if in an exceptional case, the mutt head is found to abuse his position, there are provisions in the statute to deal with the situation,” the court added.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by a man, S Veeraraghavan, seeking directions to the HR & CE and the temple authorities to take all necessary steps to fill up the vacancy in the Peetham of the Sriranganarayana Jeeyar Madam so that the services required to be rendered in the Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam are carried out as per custom.

When the matter was taken up, the State assured the court that steps will be taken to appoint the Mutt head within 6 months.

The court noted that though the public interest litigation related to appointments, since it was a matter of public concern and related to the religious faith and practice of a large number of citizens of the country, the court could issue directions.

The court observed that the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act would be applicable to a math or mutt also. The court noted that the Mutt is headed by a Mathadhipati and normally, during his lifetime, he would nominate a successor. However, when a Mathadhipati passes away without such nomination, the vacancies would be filed up as per the custom of the particular institution.

The court noted that the Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar mutt has been a part of the administration of Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam and the Jeeyar who heads the mutt has been invested with certain functions and powers. The court noted that the Jeeyars discharge spiritual functions apart from carrying out administrative responsibilities and act as a neutral arbiter to ensure that the Agamas are followed. The court also noted that as per the customs and usage of the mutt, the successor has to be chosen by the Sthalattars of the temple when there has been no nomination.

The court added that any individual is entitled to insist that the administration of the temple is carried out in accordance with the settled usages as a vacancy would infringe the right of the devotees.

“A devotee of a temple is entitled to insist that its administration is carried on in accordance with the settled usages. As already mentioned, the Jeeyar has been assigned with certain special duties. He is considered as the personal attendant of the Lord Himself. The non-discharge of such spiritual functions on account of the vacancy in the office of Jeeyar constitutes a breach of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 25 of the Constitution,” the court observed.

The court further noted that when the Sthalattars of the temple did not come to select the successor, the HR & CE department ought to have nudged them into selecting a suitable successor. The court noted that instead of doing the same, the department had itself called for applications in 2021, but had not taken any consequential steps to fill up the appointment.

The court remarked that the department could not appoint the head, as it was a purely religious function and it was upon the temple Sthalattar to appoint the head. The court thus directed the department to convene a meeting of the Sthalattars at the earliest, who shall then request eligible and suitable persons to come forward to adorn the Peetham.

The court added that like the Cardinals are locked inside the Sistine Chapel for the selection of the Pope, the Sthalattars could also be locked inside the Mutt premises and allowed to come out only after resolving the issue.

“In passing, we remark that just as the Cardinals are locked inside the Sistine Chapel and the doors are opened only when the white smoke emanates from the chimney indicating the selection of the Pope, the Sthalattars should be locked inside the Mutt premises and allowed to come out only after resolving the issue,” the court said.

The court also made it clear that if the Sthalattars fail to discharge their duty, the court would exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction and call upon a kindred institution to carry out this exercise.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Raguvaran Gopalan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. V. Balasubramanian, Addl. Advocate General, Asst. by Mr. M. P. Senthil, Govt. Pleader, Mr. M. Saravanan