https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465746 The dominant issue was whether a State G.O. permitting appointments of temple Archakas could override temple-specific Agamas and the Constitution Bench ruling in Seshammal. The SC held that Seshammal upheld abolition of the hereditary principle as a secular practice amenable to reform under Art. 25(2)(a), but did not dispense with the statutory and constitutional requirement that temple affairs, including appointments, conform to the usage/Agamas governing the temple. The SC further held that Art. 16(5) protects denomination-based appointments where Agamas so mandate, extending to offices involving religious functions, subject to constitutional limitations. Consequently, the G.O.'s validity must be tested case-by-case against identified Agamic prescriptions and constitutional norms, and appointments must follow Agamas so identified and constitutionally compliant. 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 The dominant issue was whether a State G.O. permitting appointments of temple Archakas could override temple-specific Agamas and the Constitution Bench ruling in Seshammal. The SC held that Seshammal upheld abolition of the hereditary principle as a secular practice amenable to reform under Art. 25(2)(a), but did not dispense with the statutory and constitutional requirement that temple affairs, including appointments, conform to the usage/Agamas governing the temple. The SC further held that Art. 16(5) protects denomination-based appointments where Agamas so mandate, extending to offices involving religious functions, subject to constitutional limitations. Consequently, the G.O.'s validity must be tested case-by-case against identified Agamic prescriptions and constitutional norms, and appointments must follow Agamas so identified and constitutionally compliant. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465746