MADURAI: Setting aside the appointment of two non-Brahmin priests of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy temple at Kumaravayalur of Srirangam taluk in Tiruchy, on the ground that they do not come under the denomination of ‘Adi Saivars’ or ‘Sivachariyars’ or ‘Gurukkals’ and therefore are ineligible to be appointed in the agamic temple, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court recently directed the fit person of the temple to consider appointing Brahmin priests K Karthick and S Parameswaran to the posts.
Justice GR Swaminathan passed the order on the petitions filed by Karthick and Parameswaran challenging the appointment of the non-Brahmin priests S Prabhu and S Jayabalan. The judge observed,
“Only Adi Saivars or Sivachariyars or Gurukkals, who have gained knowledge in the agamas, are eligible and qualified to be appointed as Archakas for the said temple.”
The Tamil Nadu government issued a GO, followed by an amendment in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, to the effect that any person who is a Hindu and possesses requisite qualification and training can be appointed as Archaka in Hindu temples.
But Justice Swaminathan noted that the Supreme Court, while hearing a petition filed by Sivacharyargal Nala Sangam in 2016, had opined that the said GO has the potential of falling foul of the dictum laid down by it in one Seshammal’s case.
In Seshammal’s case, the top court had held that “...failure to appoint ‘Archaka’ from a specified denomination, sect or group in accordance with the directions of the Agamas governing the temple, would not only be contrary to Section 28(1) of the HR and CE Act, but also interferes with a religious practice,” he pointed out.
However the judge added that this does not amount to a breach of Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability) of the Constitution of India as even Smartha Brahmin (a sect of Brahmins) are not eligible to be appointed as ‘Archaka’ as per the ‘Kamika Agama’, which governs the aforesaid temple.
“A Smartha Brahmin cannot enter the sanctum-sanctorum. If persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste community alone have been disqualified, then such an agama will have to be ignored as unconstitutional. Such is not the case here. On the other hand, this is a question of upholding the fundamental rights of a denomination,” the judge further observed.
Also noting that the petitioners, though not formally appointed, have been working as ‘Archakas’ in the temple for more than a decade, the judge said there is no justification for not considering their case. “In hundreds of temples in Tamil Nadu, Archakas are performing their religious duties even without getting any salary. They were never appointed in the first place. These are matters of tradition, custom and usage,” he added and directed the trustee or fit person of the temple to consider and take a decision on appointing the petitioners as Archakas within two months.