https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465746 Temple-specific Agamic prescriptions govern Archaka appointments where they form part of an essential religious practice, and a blanket Government Order cannot displace those rules without examining the applicable Agamas and their constitutional validity. The Court reaffirmed that Articles 25 and 26 protect essential religious practices and that the validity of such appointments depends on the particular temple and governing Agamas. It further stated that Article 16(5) permits denomination-based religious appointments where the religious framework requires them, but not caste-based exclusion. Article 17 and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 were held to have limited relevance because the controversy concerned denomination and religious affiliation, not untouchability. en-us Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:15:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465746 Temple-specific Agamic prescriptions govern Archaka appointments where they form part of an essential religious practice, and a blanket Government Order cannot displace those rules without examining the applicable Agamas and their constitutional validity. The Court reaffirmed that Articles 25 and 26 protect essential religious practices and that the validity of such appointments depends on the particular temple and governing Agamas. It further stated that Article 16(5) permits denomination-based religious appointments where the religious framework requires them, but not caste-based exclusion. Article 17 and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 were held to have limited relevance because the controversy concerned denomination and religious affiliation, not untouchability. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465746