Madras High Court

E.Tamil Elango vs Managing Trustee/Chairman on 1 September, 2021

                                                                      W.P.No.2178 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 01.09.2021

                                                     CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

                                               W.P.No.2178 of 2015
                                               and MP.No.1 of 2015

                     E.Tamil Elango                                           ... Petitioner

                                                        Vs

                     1. Managing Trustee/Chairman,
                        Arulmigu Azhagu Natchiamman Temple,
                        Paruthipalli, Thiruchengodu, Namakkal.

                     2. Assistant Commissioner Office of the Assistant Commissioner
                        (Salem Division) H.R.&C.E Department,
                        Salem 636 001.

                     3. Joint Commissioner (Thirupani)
                        Office of the Commissioner,
                        H.R.&C.E Department, Chennai 600 034.

                     4. Joint Commissioner,
                        Office of the Joint Commissioner (Salem Region)
                        H.R & C.E Department, Salem 636 001.

                     5. Santha linga Adigalar,
                        Thavathiru Santhalinga Thirumutt,
                        Perur, Coimbatore - 641 010.
                                                                      ...Respondents


                     1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                              W.P.No.2178 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015


                                   Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
                     issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to carry out
                     consecration of Arulmigu Azhagu Nachi Amman Temple in Paruthipalli or
                     in any other temple falling under the control and management of the fourth
                     respondent as per Agamas.
                                        For Petitioner           : Mr.SP.Chockalingam
                                        For R1                   : Mr.S.Senthilnathan
                                        For R2 to R4             : Mr.G.Krishnaraja,
                                                                   Government Counsel

                                                             ORDER

According to the petitioner, Arultharum Azhagu Nachi Amman

Temple situated at Paruthipalli Village, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal

District is an ancient temple, which is Kulakovil of Sellan Kullam @

Elukarai Sellan Kullam. The first respondent with the physical and financial

support of the people of the Sellan clan, renovated the said temple, which is

under the management and control of the second respondent and the third

respondent is in-charge of carrying out the renovation of the temple.

2.It is the grievance of the petitioner that the first respondent issued a

publication informing the public that the renovated temple would be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2178 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015

consecrated on 1st February, 2015 by following some practices. According

to him, consecration has to be done, according to Agamas, which has been

followed for thousands of years; deviation from the same is against the

beliefs and amounts to violation of fundamental rights as guaranteed under

Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the petitioner has

come up with this present writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the

respondent authorities to carry out consecration of the subject temple or in

any other temple falling under the control and management of the fourth

respondent as per Agamas.

3.Heard both sides and perused the documents enclosed in the typed

set of papers.

4.There cannot be any dispute that the court has the power to

determine, whether a particular rite or observance is regarded as essential by

the tenets of a particular religion. However, the supreme court in

Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and another v.

C.K.Rajan and others [2003 (7) SCC 546], has dealt with the question of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2178 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015

appointment of Managing Committee in a temple and struck a note of

caution of the court's power to enter into any dispute of arena and the

following passage found in paragraph 64 may be usefully quoted:

“64.The Court should be circumspect in entertaining such public interest litigation for another reason. There may be dispute amongst the devotees as to what practices should be followed by the temple authorities. There may be dispute as regards the rites and rituals to be performed in the temple or omission thereof. Any decision in favour of one sector of the people may hurt the sentiments of the other. The courts normally, thus, at the first instance would not enter into such disputed arena, particularly, when by reason thereof the fundamental right of a group of devotees under Articles 25 and 26 may be infringed. Like any other wing of the State, the courts also while passing an order, should ensure that the fundamental rights of a group of citizens under Articles 25 and 26 are not infringed. Such care and caution on the part of the High Court would be a welcome step.”

5.In WA(MD)No.243 of 2009, Sona. Krishnamoorthy case, relating

to construction of Yagasala outside the compound wall of the Tiruchendur

Temple on the occasion of Kumbabhishekam, this court, by order dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2178 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015

22.06.2009, after following the legal proposition that 'an essential religious

practice is protected by Article 25(1) and not an optional religious practice',

has held that “if a custom or practice followed for several years, is altered or

deviated from, and such deviation has the sanction of some ancient religious

texts, it cannot be said to be an infringement of Articles 25 and 26 of the

Constitution and the location of the yagasala outside the temple cannot be

found fault with”.

6.In yet another decision, in V.S.Sivakumar v. M.Pitchai Battar,

wherein, the question arose for consideration is, whether the action of the

official respondents in providing for archanas to be performed in Tamil at

the request of the devotees in addition to the existing practice of reciting

archanas in Sanskrit, would offend Article 25 of the Constitution, the

Division Bench of this court has held that 'there was nothing either in the

agamas or in any other religious script to prohibit the chanting of Tamil

manthras in the temples run under the administration of the HR&CE

Department'; and that, 'the choice was vested with the devotees to seek for

their archanas to be performed at their wishes by chanting the manthras

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2178 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015

either in Tamil or in Sanskrit'. In the light of the same, the First Bench of

this court in a recent order dated 03.09.2021 in WP.No.18418 of 2021

rejected the claim of the petitioner therein seeking a direction to respondent

authorities to withdraw the Annai Thamizhil Archanai Scheme, after

observing as follows:

“6.Nothing that the petitioner cites would permit this court to take a view at variance with the one expressed in V.S.Sivakumar. In the event the petitioner requires a re- assessment, it has to be at an altogether different level.

7.Judicial discipline commands that when an issue has been decided, unless the circumstances have changed or the decision on the issue is rendered suspect on account of the judgment not taking the applicable law into account or any pronouncement of a superior forum has intervened, the matter may not be revisited. There is no change in the circumstances and no case is made out for reconsidering a matter that has been concluded in the year 2008 and instructs the manner in which mantras may be chanted in temples in the State.

8.Since the only issue which the petitioner raises is covered in the previous judgment of this court which remains binding, there is no merit in the present petition for it to be admitted.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2178 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015

7.Coming to the case at hand, the issue involved is already decided

by this court, vide order dated 31.01.2020 in WP(MD)Nos.1102, 1126 and

1644 of 2020, wherein, the Division Bench, after referring to various

judicial pronouncements, has dismissed the said writ petitions, by observing

thus:

“21.Considering the abovesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered view and opinion that the Court should be hesitant and reluctant to interfere with the religious functions and ceremonies of the Temples, unless a strong case has been made out and established that the religious practices and functions of the Temples are violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India and in such view of the matter, in the light of the aovesaid arrangements made at the Thanjai Peruvudaiyar Temple/ Brihadeeswarar Temple in the proposed consecration ceremony by giving the Tamil language due prominence as per the agama principles and as done earlier and when it is further noted that the Sanskrit language has not been given any special status, particularly, by ignoring the Tamil language, in all, we do not find sufficient cause to accede to the case projected by the petitioners and in such view of the matter, we do not deem it fit and appropriate to interfere with the religious functions and ceremonies of the Temple in question

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2178 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015

by giving any directions qua the performance of the consecration ceremony to be held on 05.02.2020 as putforth by the petitioners.”

8.Further more, another Division Bench of this Court, by order dated

07.06.2021 in suo motu W.P.No.574 of 2015 etc. batch, has issued as many

as 75 directions to the respondent authorities, in respect of historical

monuments and temple related issues.

9.Thus, the overall analysis of the legal principles as culled out from

the above referred to the decisions, would lead this court to come to a

conclusion that all the religious practices and ceremonies connected to the

temples should be done in accordance with the customs followed thereto.

With this obseervation, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

01.09.2021

Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no av

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2178 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015

1. Managing Trustee/Chairman, Arulmigu Azhagu Natchiamman Temple, Paruthipalli, Thiruchengodu, Namakkal.

2. Assistant Commissioner Office of the Assistant Commissioner (Salem Division) H.R.&C.E Department, Salem 636 001.

3. Joint Commissioner (Thirupani) Office of the Commissioner, H.R.&C.E Department, Chennai 600 034.