“You're Not Even In India”: Madras High Court Dismisses Nithyananda's Plea For Appointment As Madathipathi In Three Mutts

The Madras High Court, on Friday, dismissed an appeal filed by Swami Nithyananda seeking to be appointed as the Madathipathi or Head of three Mutts - Sri Somanatha Swami Temple & Mutt at Thiruvarur, Sri Arunachala Gnanadesikar Swami Temple & Mutt at Vedaranyam, and Sri Po.Ka.Sathukal Madam at Vedaranyam. Dismissing his appeal, the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice C Kumarappan orally remarked that Nithyananda was not even in India to be able to administer the temples. The court thus opined that there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the single judge. Nithyananda had approached the court against the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board directing the Assistant Commissioner to appoint Executive Officers to administer the properties of the three temples as per Section 60 of the HR&CE Act. Nithyananda had submitted that he was nominated by Sri Swami Athamanada, earlier Madathipathi to administer and control the Mutts and the nomination deed was also presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration. However, due to some dispute, Swami Athamanada lodged complaints against Nithyananda. He also informed the court that he had filed a civil suit to declare him as the Madathipathi of the Mutts and also to restrain Athamanada Swami from interfering with the affairs of the temple in which an interim injunction was granted in his favour. Nithyananda further submitted that while this interim injunction existed, the Commissioner had passed the impugned orders based on complaints by some private persons. He argued that the officials had no role to play in the affairs of the Mutt as he had been duly appointed by the earlier Madathipathi. He also argued that the impugned order was passed without granting him an opportunity to hear and was thus violative of the principles of natural justice. He added that the order passed during the pendency of the civil suit was non-est in law and unsustainable. The department, on the other hand, submitted that all the Mutt properties would come within the purview of the HR & CE Act and thus, the contention raised by Nithyananda was not legally sustainable. It was submitted that the Mutt owned several properties some of which were alienated illegally by the Madathipathi and their power Agents for their personal gains. The department also produced documents to support their case. The department further argued that the nomination deed executed in favour of Nithyananda was itself under question as it had not been registered before the Registering Authority due to invalidation. The department thus informed the court that it had passed the impugned order, after following due procedures, to protect the properties of the Mutt. Finding force in the department's arguments, the single judge had observed that the nomination in favour of Nithyananda was invalid due to the cancellation of power vested to earlier Madathipathi. The court also noted that there was no violation of principles of natural justice as an elaborate enquiry was conducted before passing the order. The court also observed that the whereabouts of Nithyananda were unknown and thus, the power vested by him to his representatives was doubtful. Thus, finding that there was no merit, the single judge dismissed Nithyananda's plea. Challenging this order, Nithyananda argued that the single judge had erred in holding that his whereabouts were unknown. Nithyananda submitted that his whereabouts were a part of public knowledge and was at Kailasa, a nation near Ecuador, that has diplomatic relations with over 50 nations and is even recognised by the United Nations. He also submitted that the nomination in his favour was already a subject matter of the suit before the Sub Court in Nagapattinam and thus the single judge had erred in holding that it was not valid.The HR & CE however submitted that there were no reasons to interfere with the single judge's order. It was argued that Nithyananda had pending criminal cases against him and thus he could not be appointed as a Mutt head especially when the nomination itself was questionable. The division bench, however, was not inclined to accept Nithyananda's submissions. The court also wondered how Nithyananda would be able to administer the properties of the temple when he was not even residing in the country. Thus, finding no merit in his appeal, the court dismissed the same. Advocate P Godson Swaminathan appeared for Nithyananda and Advocate Arun Natarajan appeared for the Hr & CE Department. Case Title: Sri Nithyananda Swami v The Commissioner and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 35 Case No: WA 275 of 2025

“You're Not Even In India”: Madras High Court Dismisses Nithyananda's Plea For Appointment As Madathipathi In Three Mutts

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

“You're Not Even In India”: Madras High Court Dismisses Nithyananda's Plea For Appointment As Madathipathi In Three Mutts

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers