Fundamental Right To Freedom Of Religion Can't Be Expanded To Affect Peaceful Atmosphere In Temple: Madras High Court

While granting relief to the Thengalai sect (Southern cult) to conduct the ceremonial worship at the Sri Devaraja Swamy temple in Kancheepuram, the Madras High Court recently observed that the fundamental right to freedom of religion cannot be expanded to affect the rights of the temple's office holders or to disturb the peaceful atmosphere of the temple. The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice S Sounthar rejected the argument of the Vadagalai sect (Northern cult), which argued that giving ceremonial rights to the southern cult would infringe their rights under Article 25 and 26. The bench noted that as per the earlier round of litigations, which started as early as in the 18th century, the southern cult was given the rights of official performance of certain services to the deity. “An ordinary worshipper, who is not an office holder, is not entitled to say that he can also perform the official services which are to be performed by Office Holders. An ordinary Devotee cannot emulate the role of Official Priest, Puja Assistants or Othurvar during performance of Official Puja by the Office Holders. The ordinary devotees are entitled to worship the God without interfering the performance of official duties by the Office Holders,” the court said. The court also noted that the northern cult was allowed to attend the pooja like ordinary devotee and thus their rights would not be affected. The court thus observed that allowing the northern cult would affect the public order, which was a reasonable restriction that could be imposed on the right to freedom of religion. “If such acts by individual worshippers are allowed during Ceremonial Worship time, the conducive atmosphere in the Temple during Ceremonial Worship will get vitiated and people will not be in a position to have peaceful worship of God. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, we can say that an ordinary worshipper of a Temple is entitled to recite his own holy songs, poems etc., loudly, so as to vitiate the atmosphere or perform certain services to God exclusively reserved for office holders. The right to freedom of religion enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of Constitution of India cannot be expanded to affect the rights of Office Holders and to vitiate the peaceful atmosphere in the Temple. If such things are permitted, certainly it will affect the right to worship available to the other devotees,” the court added. Background Both the Thengalai and the Vadagalai sects are worshippers of Ramanujacharya, a Hindu philosopher, guru, and social reformer who was one of the important exponents of Vaishnavism in Hinduism. However, both sects follow the teachings of two different disciples of Ramanuja. While the Thengalai sect follows the teachings of Manavala Mamunigal, the Vadagalai sect follows the teachings of Vedanta Desikan. The dispute between the two sects was with respect to reciting verses praising their respective Gurus during the ceremonial worship of God. It may be noted that in litigations in 1882, 1915, 1939, and in 1970 ended in favour of the Thengalai sect, allowing them to recite their Manthram and Prabandham during the pooja service. The present litigation was at the instance of the Vadagalai sect, challenging the notice issued by the Executive Trustee of the temple wherein it was informed that only manthram of the Thengalai sect will be recited during the pooja and that the members of the Vadagalai sect could not occupy the first two rows in the prayer recitation. The single judge had allowed the Vadagali sect to recite their prayer, noting that the freedom of religion also extended to rites and ceremonies associated with the religion. This order was later kept in abeyance by a division bench. The Thengalai sect argued that they had the exclusive right to the office of the Adhiapaka Mirai (official performance of certain services to the deity at the time of ceremonial worship), which had been recognised by the courts in earlier rounds of litigation. It was argued that when members of the Thengalai sect performed their right attached to the office, the members of the Vadagalai sect were not entitled to interfere or recite their own manthra in praise of their guru. The Vadagalai sect, however, argued that the right to recite manthra in praise of their guru was part of their fundamental right to worship. It was argued that the earlier litigations were violative of their constitutional rights and that the earlier decisions were not in rem, as it was in favour of only 7 families of the Thengalai sect. The court noted that even in the earlier litigations, the court had recognised the Vadagalai sect's right to religion and allowed them to participate in the pooja ceremonies. The court thus observed that the restriction imposed on the members of the Vadagalai sect was only against the chanting of manthra, which would come under the...

Fundamental Right To Freedom Of Religion Can't Be Expanded To Affect Peaceful Atmosphere In Temple: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags