2015 (12) TMI 1917 - SC - Indian Laws

Temple archaka appointments vs temple Agamas: State G.O. can't override Agama-based rules; validity tested case-by-case under Articles 25(2)(a), 16(5).

The dominant issue was whether a State G.O. permitting appointments of temple Archakas could override temple-specific Agamas and the Constitution Bench ... Legality and validity of the G.O. 23.05.2006 - appointment in public office i.e. Archakas in public temples - true meaning, purport and effect of the Constitution Bench judgment in Seshammal [1972 (3) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT] - HELD THAT:- The contours of the challenge in Seshammal (supra) has already been noticed. To repeat, it is the validity of the Amendment Act of 1970 which sought to amend, inter alia, Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Act that was questioned in Seshammal. The Constitution Bench in Seshammal answered ling that the the question by holding that the hereditary principle which was of long usage was a secular principle and therefore a legislation to alter the said usage, i.e. the Amendment Act of 1970, was competent under Article 25(2)(a). However, the Constitution Bench was quick to add that it is to the limited extent of the above exception alone, namely, the liberty to make the appointment from persons beyond next in line to the last holder that the trustee is released from the obligation imposed on him 21: by Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Act which otherwise requires the trustee to administer the affairs of the temple in accordance with the usage governing the temple. The freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is not only confined to beliefs but extends to religious practices also would hardly require reiteration. Right of belief and practice is guaranteed by Article 25 subject to public order, morality and health and other provisions of Part- III of the Constitution. Sub-Article (2) is an exception and makes the right guaranteed by Sub-article (1) subject to any existing law or to such law as may be enacted to, inter alia, provide for social welfare and reforms or throwing or proposing to throw open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Article 16(5), fortified by the debates that had taken place in the Constituent Assembly, according to us, protects the appointment of Archakas from a particular denomination, if so required to be made, by the Agamas holding the field. The debates in the Constituent Assembly referred to discloses that the suggestion that the operation of Article 16(5) should be restricted to connected with administration of a religious institution was negatived. The exception in Article 16(5), therefore, would cover an office in a temple which also requires performance of religious functions. In fact, the above though not expressly stated could be one of the basis for the views expressed by the Constitution Bench in Sheshammal. The difficulty lies not in understanding or restating the constitutional values. There is not an iota of doubt on what they are. But to determine whether a claim of state action in furtherance thereof overrides the constitutional guarantees under Article 25 and 26 may often involve what has already been referred to as a delicate and unenviable task of identifying essential religious beliefs and practices, sans which the religion itself does not survive. It is in the performance of this task that the absence of any exclusive ecclesiastical jurisdiction of this Court, if not other shortcomings and adequacies, that can be felt. Moreover, there is some amount of uncertainty with regard to the prescription contained in the Agamas - A determination of the contours of a claimed custom or usage would be imperative and it is in that light that the validity of the impugned G.O. dated 23.05.2006 will have to be decided in each case of appointment of Archakas whenever and wherever the issue is raised. The necessity of seeking specific judicial verdicts in the future is inevitable and unavoidable; the contours of the present case and the issues arising being what has been discussed. Thus, as held in Seshammal appointments of Archakas will have to be made in accordance with the Agamas, subject to their due identification as well as their conformity with the Constitutional mandates and principles - petition disposed off. Issues: (i) Whether Government Order No.118 dated 23.05.2006 (which declares that any Hindu possessing requisite qualification can be appointed as an Archaka) is legally valid insofar as it purports to permit appointments contrary to prescriptions of the Agamas; (ii) What is the scope and effect of the earlier decisions in Seshammal and N. Adithayan on appointments of Archakas and on the legal status of customs/usages embodied in the Agamas.Issue (i): Whether the impugned Government Order permitting appointment of any qualified Hindu as Archaka is valid where specific Agamic prescriptions or usages require appointment from a particular denomination.Analysis: The Court examined Articles 25 and 26 (and their exceptions), Article 16(5), Article 17 and relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act (notably Sections 28 and 55). It noted that Agamas may prescribe that performance of certain temple rituals by persons of particular denominations is an integral religious practice and that Section 28 binds trustees to administer temple affairs in accordance with usage. The Court balanced the constitutional protections for essential religious practices against the State's power to enact laws for social welfare and reform and observed that constitutional conformity must be tested case by case. The Court also recognized uncertainty and evidentiary difficulties in identifying and proving the precise contents of Agamic prescriptions for particular temples.Conclusion: Appointments of Archakas must accord with the Agamas where a particular Agamic prescription is proved and is constitutionally permissible; a blanket executive fiat that any qualified Hindu may be appointed has the potential to conflict with such Agamic prescriptions and thus cannot be universally sustained.Issue (ii): The effect of Seshammal (Constitution Bench) and N. Adithayan (smaller Bench) on the present controversy regarding exclusive denominational appointment and caste-based exclusion.Analysis: The Court read Seshammal as holding that (a) abolition of next-in-line hereditary succession was a secular change permissible under Article 25(2)(a), but (b) where Agamas prescribe that Archakas must belong to a particular denomination, such prescriptions pertain to essential religious practices enforceable against trustees under Section 28 unless they are unconstitutional. Adithayan was examined and distinguished: rights claimed solely on caste pedigree are not protected; exclusion on caste alone is impermissible. The two decisions are reconcilable: Seshammal preserves Agamic denominational prescriptions (if proved and constitutionally valid), while Adithayan rejects caste-based exclusion unconnected to Agamic essential practices.Conclusion: Seshammal and Adithayan are reconcilable; Seshammal does not endorse caste-based exclusion but recognizes enforceability of bona fide Agamic prescriptions as essential religious practices; Adithayan bars exclusion based solely on caste or pedigree.Final Conclusion: The legal effect is that appointment of Archakas must be determined by reference to the identified Agamic prescriptions applicable to the temple and their compatibility with constitutional mandates; the validity of executive orders or appointments that disregard such proven Agamic prescriptions must be adjudicated on the facts of each case rather than by a universal rule.Ratio Decidendi: Where a particular Agama (or set of Agamas) prescribes that Archakas must belong to a specified denomination and that prescription constitutes an essential religious practice, trustees are bound under Section 28 to follow that usage and appointments contrary to such proven Agamic prescriptions will be invalid unless the prescription is shown to be unconstitutional under Articles 25, 26, 14, 16(5) and other relevant constitutional provisions.