[Cites 30, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
P.B.Rajahamsam vs S.Narayanan on 28 November, 2025
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
2025:MHC:2741
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 24.07.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022,
W.P.No.13027 of 2021, W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and
W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
and
C.M.P.Nos.8850, 8851, 8852 and 8853 of 2022,
C.M.P.Nos.2094, 2095 and 9449 of 2024,
C.M.P.Nos.10439 and 10445 of 2025 and
W.M.P.Nos.12433 and 12434 of 2022,
W.M.P.Nos.29537, 32323 and 32480 of 2018,
W.M.P.Nos.10147 and 11037 of 2024 and
Sub.Appl.Nos.305, 314 and 315 of 2021
W.A.No.1381 of 2022:
P.B.Rajahamsam ... Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Narayanan
2.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Tourism, Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Chennai.
3.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034
1/106
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
4.The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee
Arulmigu Devarajaswamy Thirukkovil
Sannadhi Street
Kanchipuram – 631 501.
5.T.A.Ranganathan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order in W.M.P.No.12434 of 2022 in
W.P.No.12955 of 2022, dated 17.05.2022.
For Appellant : Mr.Vijaya Narayan, Senior Counsel
Mrs.Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel
Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan, Senior Counsel
Mr.A.K.Sriram, Senior Counsel
Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, Senior Counsel
Mr.K.B.S.Rajan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.M.V.Swaroop
For R1 : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Abhinav Parthasarathy
For R2 and R3 : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader
Assisted by Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.R.Bharanidharan, Standing Counsel
For R5 : Mr.R.Palaniandavan
and M/s.Varuni Mohan
W.A.No.1382 of 2022:
T.A.Ranganathan ... Appellant
2/106
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Vs.
1.S.Narayanan
2.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Tourism, Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department, Chennai.
3.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034
4.The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee
Arulmigu Devarajaswamy Thirukkovil
Sannadhi Street
Kanchipuram – 631 501.
5.P.B.Rajahamsam ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order dated 17.05.2022 passed in
W.M.P.No.12434 of 2022 in W.P.No.12955 of 2022.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Palaniandavan
and M/s.Varuni Mohan
For R1 : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Abhinav Parthasarathy
For R2 and R3 : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader
Assisted by Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.R.Bharanidharan
3/106
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Standing Counsel
For R5 : Mr.M.V.Swaroop
4/106
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
W.P.No.13027 of 2021:
P.B.Rajahamsam ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
B-2 Vishnu Kanchi Police Station
Nethaji Nagar, Kanchipuram – 631 501
2.The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee
Arulmigu Devarajaswamy Thirukkovil
Sannadhi Street
Kanchipuram – 631 501.
3.K.N.Krishnan
(R3 Impleaded vide order dated 25.08.2021 made in
WMP.No.14219/2021 in WP.No.13027/2021)
4.S.Narayanan
(R4 Impleaded vide order dated 25.08.2021 made in
WMP.No.14243/2021 in WP.No.13027/2021)
5.S.R.Ramesh
6.T.S.Krishnan
(R5 and R6 Impleaded vide order dated 25.08.2021 made
in WMP.No.14319/2021 in WP.No.13027/2021)
7.A.K.Satakopan/Suresh
(R7 Impleaded vide order dated 25.08.2021 made in
WMP.No.14360/2021 in WP.No.13027/2021)
8.PV.Devarajan
5/106
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
9.R.Srivatsan
(R8 and R9 Impleaded vide order dated 25.08.2021 made in
WMP.No.14409/2021 in WP.No.13027/2021)
10.T.A.Ramanujan
(R10 Impleaded vide order dated 25.08.2021 made in
WMP.No.14838/2021 in WP.No.13027/2021)
11.P.B.V.Sudharsan
12.K.B.Srinivasan
(R11 and R12 Impleaded vide order dated 28.09.2021 made
in WMP.Nos.20776 and 21395/2021 in WP.No.13027/2021)
13.Dr.M.A.Venkatakrishnan (Party-in-Person) ... Respondents
(R13 Impleaded as per order dated 30.01.2025 in
WMP.No.3200/2024 in WP.No.13027/2021)
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to
provide adequate protection to the Petitioner and other Thengalais and
take all such required action to ensure that petitioner can render service
of prabandham recitation in front of the deity of the Devarajaswamy
Temple Kancheepuram by taking action against and removing any
persons interfering with such recitation or acting contrary to the
judgments in Appeal No.175 of 1910 dated 15.01.1915 and in Appeal
6/106
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
No.283 of 1963 dated 24.03.1969 passed by this Court and as per the
Notices issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 23.12.2020 and 19.04.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.Vijaya Narayan, Senior Counsel
Mrs.Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel
Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan, Senior Counsel
Mr.A.K.Sriram, Senior Counsel
Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, Senior Counsel
Mr.K.B.S.Rajan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.M.V.Swaroop
For R1 : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.R.Bharanidharan
Standing Counsel
For R3 : Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel
for M/s.S.Victor Prasath
For R4 : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Abhinav Parthasarathy
For R5 : Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel
for M/s.N.V.Narayanan
For R6 : Mr.N.V.Balaji
For R7 : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Nittilakshan
For R8 and R9 : Mr.Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Rahul Balaji
For R10 : Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar
7/106
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
For R11 : Mr.R.Palaniandavan
and M/s.Varuni Mohan
For R12 : M/s.R.Meenal
For R13 : Dr.M.A.Venkatakrishnan
(Party-in-Person)
8/106
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
W.P.No.12955 of 2022:
S.Narayanan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Tourism, Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Nungambakkam, Chennai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee,
Arulmigu Devarajaswamy Thirukkovil
Sannadhi Street,
Kanchipuram – 631 501.
4.T.A.Ranganathan
5.P.B.Rajahamsam ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
impugned order, styled as Notice bearing ITMS Code : 1864, dated
14.05.2022, issued by the 3rd Respondent and quash the same as illegal,
illogical, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Abhinav Parthasarathy
For R1 and R2 : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader
Assisted by Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate
For R3 : Mr.R.Bharanidharan, Standing Counsel
9/106
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
W.P.No.24729 of 2018:
A.K.Suresh @ Satagopan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
College Road, Nungambakkam
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer,
Sri Devarajaswamy Devasthanam,
Kancheepuram.
3.K.B.Srinivasan ... Respondents
(R3 impleaded as per Court order dated 26.09.2018 in
WMP.No.29406/2018 in W.P.No.24729/2018)
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to arrange
for the rendition of Prabandam of Acharya Vedanta Desika at Sri
Devarajaswamy Devasthanam, Kancheepuram on his 750th Birth day
which falls on 21.09.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.K.Kannan
For R1 : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader
Assisted by Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate
10/106
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
For R2 : Mr.K.Hariharan
Cont.P.No.367 of 2020:
T.A.Ranganathan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Mr.N.Thiyagarajan,
Executive Trustee/Assistant Commissioner
Sri Devaraja Swamy Devasthanam,
Sannadhi Street, Kanchipuram.
2.T.A.Ramanujan ... Respondents
(Respondent No.2 is impleaded as per order dated
30.04.2021 in Sub.Appl.No.168/2021 in Cont.P.No.367/2020)
PRAYER: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate contempt proceedings against the
respondent, enquire and punish him for wilfully and deliberately
disobeying the judgments of this Court dated 15.01.1915 in Appeal
No.175 of 1910 and in Appeal No.283 of 1963 dated 24.03.1969.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Palaniandavan
and M/s.Varuni Mohan
For R2 : Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar
11/106
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
INDEX
Paragraph
Sl.Nos. Particulars
Nos.
I Introduction 2 and 3
4 to 8
II History of Earlier Litigations
Present Litigations and Pleadings 9 to 15
III
of the Respective Parties
IV Arguments of Respective Parties 16.(i) to 16.(iii)
V Points Arising for Consideration 17(i)
VI Discussion on the Points 18 to 63
VII Conclusions 64
12/106
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SOUNTHAR, J.)
Heard Mr.Vijaya Narayan, learned Senior Counsel, Mrs.Hema
Sampath, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned
Senior Counsel, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel,
Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.K.B.S.Rajan,
learned Senior Counsel for M/s.M.V.Swaroop, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant in W.A.No.1381 of 2022, petitioner in W.P.No.13027 of
2021 and 5th respondent in W.A.No.1382 of 2022, Mr.R.Palaniandavan
and M/s.Varuni Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
W.A.No.1382 of 2022, petitioner in Cont.P.No.367 of 2020, 5th
respondent in W.A.Nos.1381 of 2022 and 11th respondent in
W.P.No.13027 of 2021, Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for
M/s.Abhinav Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.No.12955 of 2022, 1st respondent in W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of
2022 and 4th respondent in W.P.No.13027 of 2021, Mr.B.K.Kannan,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.24729 of 2018,
Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader Assisted
by Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate appearing for
respondents 2 and 3 in W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022, respondents 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
and 2 in W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and 1st respondent, Mr.R.Bharanidharan,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent in
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022, 2nd respondent in W.P.No.13027 of
2021 and 3rd respondent in W.P.No.12955 of 2022, Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent in
W.P.No.13027 of 2021, Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Victor Prasath, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent in
W.P.No.13027 of 2021 and impleading petitioner in Sub.A.No.305 of
2021, Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.N.V.Narayanan,
learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent in W.P.No.13027 of
2021, Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent in
W.P.No.13027 of 2021, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for
M/s.Nittilakshan, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent in
W.P.No.13027 of 2021, Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel for
M/s.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 8 and 9
in W.P.No.13027 of 2021, Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the 10th respondent in W.P.No.13027 of 2021 and 2nd
respondent in Cont.P.No.367 of 2020, M/s. R.Meenal, learned counsel
appearing for the 12th respondent in W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Dr.M.A.Venkatakrishnan (Party-in-Person) in W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
Mr.B.K.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
W.P.No.24729 of 2018, Mr.K.Hariharan, learned counsel apearing for the
2nd respondent in W.P.No.24729 of 2018, Mr.K.K.A.Ananthalwan (Party-
in-Person) in C.M.P.Nos.2094 and 2095 of 2024, Mr.K.V.Babu, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.M.P.No.9449 of 2024,
Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan (Party-in-Person) in W.M.P.No.10147 of
2024, Mr.Prakash Adiapadam, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in C.M.P.No.10439 and 10445 of 2025 and Mr.T.S.Vijaya
Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
W.M.P.No.11037 of 2024 and perused the materials available on record.
(I) Introduction:-
2. The present lis arising out of sectarian dispute between two
religious groups called 'Thengalai' (hereinafter referred to as 'Southern
Cult’) and Vadagalai (hereinafter referred to as 'Northern Cult'),
regarding Ceremonial Worship in famous Temple called 'Sri Devaraja
Swamy Temple' at Kancheepuram. The sectarian dispute between
Southern and Northern Cults has got a long history of over 200 years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
The rights of the respective cults were determined and adjudicated upon
by this Court in various decisions. Inspite of the same, the differences
between them continued and the present litigations are only the offshoot
of earlier litigations. The dispute between Southern Cult and Northern
Cult revolves around the duties attached with office (known as
Adhiapaka Mirasi) or official performance of certain services to the
Deity at the time of Ceremonial Worship in the Temple and at the time of
Ceremonial Procession of the Deity inside and outside the Temple. The
Members of Southern Cult claims that they have got right to Office of
Adhiapaka Miras in the Temple of Sri Devaraja Swamy and as a
necessary consequence, only their Mantram in praise of their Guru 'Sri
Manavala Mamunigal’ namely Sri Sailesa Dayapatram shall be sung
before commencement of recitation of Nalayira Divya Prabandham
during Ceremonial Worship of Deity in the Temple. They also claim that
at the time of conclusion of Puja, only their Vazhi Thirunamam referring
to Sri Manavala Mamunigal shall be recited. The said claim of Southern
Cult is opposed by members of Northern Cult by claiming that they are
also entitled to recite their Mantram Ramanuja Deyapatram praising their
Guru namely Vedanta Desigan. It is also claimed by the Northern Cult
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
that at the time of conclusion of Puja, their own Vazhi Thirunamam
referring to their Guru namely 'Vedanta Desika' shall be recited. This is
the crux of the dispute between the Members of the two cults.
3. Both Southern Cult and Northern Cult are followers of
Ramanuja. However, they claim under different spiritual Gurus. The
Members of the Southern Cult are following the teachings of Manavala
Mamunigal. The Members of the Northern Cult are following the
teachings of Vedanta Desikan. They also use different Insignia (e h k k; ).
The Southern Cult uses 'Y' shaped Insignia and the Northern Cult uses
'U' shaped Insignia. Though both the Cults are followers of Ramanuja,
during Ceremonial Worship of God, they wanted to invoke their
respective Guru and conclude the same by reciting verses in praise of
their respective Guru. Therefore, there has been a continuous friction
between these two factions and there were lot of litigations. Series of
judgments passed by different Hierarchies of Courts including this Court
right from the beginning of 19th Century did not stop these rival groups
from continuing the litigation in one form or other. The present litigation
is arising out of the latest friction between these two groups.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
(II) History of Earlier Litigations:-
4. A close scanning of typed-set of papers filed by the parties
would establish that litigations began between these two groups even in
18th Century. In order to understand the background of litigations, only
important decisions involving these two religious groups are discussed in
this chapter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
5. The first landmark decision was rendered by Division Bench of
this Court in Krishnasami Tatachaaryar and others vs.
Krishnamacharyar and others reported in (1882) ILR 5 Mad 313 =
MANU/TN/0085/1882. The said decision arose out of suit filed by
Members of Southern Cult seeking declaration of their right to
Adhiapaka Mirasi Office and for injunction restraining the Members of
the Northern Cult from introducing their Mantram during Ceremonial
Worship in Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple and taking part in the service
during ceremonial worship. The said suit was resisted by Northern Cult
on the ground that Adhiapaka Miras belongs to few families of Southern
Cult and not to all the Members of Southern Cult. It was also asserted by
them that they were entitled to recite their own Mantram and to join
recitation of Prabandham during Puja Service. This Court declared that
Adhiapaka Miras, with the exception of the Thodakam (call for
ceremonial worship) was the exclusive right of Members of Southern
Cult residing at Kancheepuram. It was also declared that Members of
Southern Cult were entitled to discharge the duties on all occasions
during performance of Ceremonial Worship or services in the Temple and
also during processions. The Members of the Northern Cult were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
injuncted from reciting their Mantram (Ramanuja Dayapatram) or
Prabandham. It was clearly observed that Members of Northern Cult can
join the Worship and repeat Prabandham as recited by Southern Cult
office holders and they have no right to invade the Office of the Tenkalai
(Southern Cult) Adhiapaka Mirasidars.
6. The next landmark case was made in Tirumalai Eachambadi
Thiruvengadachariar vs. Royadurgam Krishnasami Thathachariar
reported in 1915 MWN (Civil) 281 = MANU/TN/0840/1915. In this case,
it was also reiterated by Division Bench of this Court that during
Ceremonial Worship of God in Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple at
Kancheepuram, only the Southern Cult Mantram of Sri Sailesa Daya
Patram shall be recited by the Office Holders namely the Members of
Southern Cult and the Members of the Northern Cult, as ordinary
Worshippers, can join and repeat what was recited by the Southern Cult
Office Holders. It was also clearly held that from the commencement of
Puja till the distribution of Theertham and Prasadam, the Members of
Northern Cult could not recite any Mantram or Prabandham of their own,
but they were only entitled to join the Members of the Southern Cult as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Worshippers by reciting the very same Prabandhams. It was also held that
processions of Deity within the Temple and also outside the Temple was
also a part of the Ceremonial Worship and therefore, the Members of
Northern Cult cannot form any separate group or congregation (goshti)
of their own and recite Mantram or Prabandham, which were different
from the one recited by Office Holders namely the Members of the
Southern Cult. It was also held that the Members of the Southern Cult are
entitled to form goshti and proceed in front of the Deity and sing
Prabandham in their own way. The Members of the Northern Cult were
entitled to join them and repeat what they recite. It was further held that
the Members of Northern Cult can form a separate congregation and
recite Vedas behind the Idol. In the said decision, it was also reiterated
that the Adhiapaka Mirasi Rights during Ceremonial Worship of Deity
vested with Members of Southern Cult residing at Kancheepuram.
7. The next important decision was made in M.Appadorai
Aiyangar and others vs. P.B.Annangarachariar and others decided by
learned Single Judge of this Court, reported in AIR 1939 Mad 102 =
MANU/TN/0027/1938. In the above mentioned case law, the right of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Members of Southern Cult to form the front two rows in the congregation
in front of the Deity was upheld and it was reiterated that the Members of
the Northern Cult could only join the service as ordinary Worshippers
without interfering with the right of Members of Southern Cult to
conduct the Puja Service.
8. The next important decision was made in V.Srinivasachariar vs.
Thatha Desika Thathachariar and others reported in (1970) ILR 2 Mad
146 = MANU/TN/0586/1969. This matter was decided by Division
Bench of this Court wherein the right of Members of Southern Cult to
recite their Mantram and Prabandham in their own way during Puja
Service was upheld and the assertion of Member of Northern Cult to
recite their own Mantram was negatived. Infact, the above mentioned
appeal arose out of a statutory suit filed by one of the Members of
Northern Cult. After coming into force of Madras Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, by invoking jurisdiction vested with
Deputy Commissioner, a Statutory Authority constituted under the said
Act to decide the questions relating to custom and usage in a Religious
Institution, under Section 57(e) of the said Act. They filed an application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
seeking declaration that there was an established custom and usage of
reciting Tamil verses composed by Spiritual Guru of Northern Cult 'Sri
Vedanta Desikar' in front of Sri Varadaraja Swami. The said application
was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. The statutory appeal filed
by the Member of Northern Cult was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the
same, a statutory suit was filed before the Civil Court challenging the
dismissal order. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the
same, an appeal was filed before the Division Bench of this Court and it
was held that the plaintiff failed to establish the custom and usage
pleaded by them and the pronouncement in the earlier decisions were
reiterated.
(III) Present Litigations and Pleadings of the Respective
Parties:-
9. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.12955 of 2022 was filed by one of
the Members of Northern Cult challenging the notice issued by
Executive Trustee of Sri Devarajaswamy Temple, dated 14.05.2022
wherein following the earlier decisions of this Court, he directed that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
only Sri Sailesa Dayapatram (Manthram of Southern Cult) and Manavala
Mamunigal Vazhi Thirunamam (concluding verses of Southern Cult)
alone shall be recited during Puja Service in the Temple and the Members
of Northern Cult should not occupy the first two rows in the Divya
Prabandha Goshti. It was also stated in the said notice that Manthra of
Northern Cult namely Desika Prabandham shall not be recited. The
notice also wanted to regulate the numbers of the right holders and
ordinary worshipers joining the group at the time of Puja Service. The
said notice was challenged by a Member of Northern Cult mainly on the
ground that the order of the Executive Trustee violated fundamental right
to worship available to the Members of Northern Cult under Articles 25
and 26 of the Constitution of India. It was further averred by the
petitioner that judgments rendered by this Court mentioned above were
all pre-constitutional judgments and in the light of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Constitution of India, the law laid down in the above
mentioned judgments were unconstitutional. It was the specific case of
the Member of the Northern Cult that if Members of Northern Cult were
not permitted to sing in praise of their Guru, it would amount to violating
their fundamental right to worship.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
10. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.24729 of 2018 was filed by one of
the Members of the Northern Cult seeking direction to Officials of Tamil
Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department
(hereinafter referred to as 'HR and CE Department’) to arrange for
rendition of Prabandham of Northern Cult Guru 'Acharya Vedanta
Desika’ in Sri Devarajaswamy Temple on his 750th Birthday. It was the
specific case of the petitioner therein that a Member of Southern Cult
being Adhiyapaka Miras Holders cannot choose what should be rendered
on the 750th Birthday Celebrations of spiritual guru of Northern Cult and
any such interference by Members of Southern Cult would go beyond the
Mirasi Rights available to them. It was also stated that rendition of
Prabandham of Acharya Vedanta Desika would not come in conflict with
the practice of temple rituals or worship.
11. W.P.No.13027 of 2021 has been filed by one of the Members of
Southern Cult (Adhiapaka Rights Holder) seeking direction to local
police to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and
Members of Southern Cult to render Prabandham Service in front of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Deity and to remove any persons interfering with such recitation service
contrary to the earlier judgments of this Court. It was his specific case
that the Members of Northern Cult wilfully flouted the judgments of this
Court mentioned above and interfered with the rights available to the
Members of the Southern Cult as Office Holders. It was also stated that
the Members of Northern Cult attempted to recite their own Manthrams,
Prabandhams and Vazhi Thirunamam and physically and verbally
assaulted the Members of Southern Cult and several First Information
Reports have been registered. In such circumstances, the petitioner
sought for police protection.
12. Contempt Petition No.367 of 2020 was filed by one of the
Members of Southern Cult having permanent residence at Kancheepuram
(one of the Members of the Adhiapaka Mirasi Holder) complaining
wilful disobedience to the judgments passed by this Court in Appeal Suit
No.175 of 1910, dated 15.01.1915 and Appeal No.283 of 1963, dated
24.03.1969 by the Executive Trustee of Sri Devarajaswamy Temple at
Kancheepuram. According to him, the Members of Northern Cult
violating the earlier Court orders, recited their Manthram Ramanuja
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Dayapatram and also Desika Prabandhams on 21.09.2018 during festival.
It was also alleged that during celebration of Desigan's Mangalasasanam
festival at Nammalvar Sannadhi, certain honors like Satari and
Theertham were offered to Northern Cult congregation in violation of the
earlier Court orders. Hence, according to him, the Executive Trustee of
the Temple by permitting the recitation of Northern Cult Manthrams and
Prabandhams committed an act of contempt. The above said contempt
petition was closed by the learned Single Judge by order dated
24.02.2020 by issuing following directions:-
“32. In view of the facts and circumstances and in the
interest of the public at large and in the interest of the
Temple administration, this Court is inclined to issue the
following directions:
(i) The first respondent / Executive Trustee / Assistant
Commissioner is directed to invite Thengalai Sect firstly
during Pooja festivals and on such invitation the Thengalai
Sect shall be permitted to recite the first two lines of
Srisaila Dayapathram (initial recital) and on completion of
the said initial recital by Thengalai Sect, the first
respondent shall permit Vadagalai Sect to commence the
first two lines of Sri Ramanuja Dayapathram (initial recital)
and on their completion of initial recital, then both
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Vadagalai and Thengalai Sectors shall be permitted to
recite Prabandhams jointly. On completion of
Prabandhams, the Thengalai Sect shall be permitted to
recite the concluding Mantram “Manavalamamunigal
Vaazhithirunamam” and thereafter, Vadagalai Sect shall be
allowed to recite their concluding Matram “Desikan Vazhi
Thirunamam” and accordingly the process of recitals shall
be concluded.
(ii) If any one of the sect namely Vadagalai or
Thengalai, not willing to recite their Mantrams and
Prabandhams, as per the directions issued by this Court as
above, then the first respondent shall permit anyone of the
willing sect to recite the Mantrams and Prabandhams
during Pooja festivals.
(iii) With reference to other religious practices,
during Pooja festivals the first respondent is directed to
implement the approved scheme scrupulously by issuing
suitable guidelines / directions to all concerned.
(iv) The first respondent is directed to register a
Police complaint in the event of any law and order problem
or otherwise during performance of the Pooja festivals. On
such complaint, jurisdictional Police shall register a
complaint and investigate the same, and initiate appropriate
actions in accordance with law.
(v) In the event of violation of any of these directions
issued in this Contempt Petition, will be treated as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Contempt of Court and the first respondent Executive
Trustee / Assistant Commissioner is directed to file an
application before this Court.
33. The said procedures are to be followed in all the
Pooja festivals with effect from 1st March 2020.”
13. Challenging the said order, contempt appeals were filed in
Contempt Appeal Nos.6 and 8 of 2020. The said appeals were allowed by
the Division Bench of this Court and contempt petition was remitted
back to the file of learned Single Judge. Thereafter, by virtue of the order
passed by Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, the contempt petition was tagged
along with above mentioned writ petitions and W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382
of 2022 pending before the Bench. Hence, the contempt petition is posted
before us.
14. The writ appeal in W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 were filed
by Members of Southern Cult challenging the interim order passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.M.P.No.12434 of 2022 in W.P.No.12955 of
2022, dated 17.05.2022 issuing following directions with regard to
conduct of Puja Service in Sri Varadaraja Swamy Temple:-
“22. In view of the facts and circumstances, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Court is inclined to pass following interim orders:
(1) The Thengalai sect shall be permitted to sit in first
two or three rows inside the Temple and behind them, the
Vadagalai sect and ordinary devotees shall be permitted to
sit in the remaining available space inside the Temple. The
seating arrangements shall be regulated by the 3rd
respondent/ Assistant Commissioner / Executive Trustee in
such a manner without affecting discipline and decorum of
the rituals and pooja activities.
(2) The Thengalai sect shall be permitted to
commence their initial recital namely Srisaila Dayapathram
and thereafter, Vadagalai sect shall be permitted to chant
initial recital namely Sri Ramanuja Dayapathram within 10
to 12 seconds each and thereafter, both the Thengalai sect,
Vadagalai sect and ordinary devotees shall be permitted to
jointly chant Naalayira Divya Prabandham in an uniformed
manner without disrupting the rituals and poojas and
without causing any inconvenience or nuisance to the other
devotees and worshippers, who all are present in the
Temple.
(3) On completion of chanting of Naalayira Divya
Prabandham by Vadagalai sect, Thengalai sect and
ordinary devotees, jointly the final ritual namely
Vazhithirunamam may be firstly chanted by Thengalai sect
i.e., “Manavalamamunigal Vaazhithirunamam” and
thereafter, the Vadagalai sect shall be allowed to recite their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
concluding Mantra i.e., “Desikan Vazhi Thirunamam” and
accordingly, the entire process of rituals shall be concluded.
(4) The third respondent / the Assistant Commissioner
/ Executive Trustee is directed to Monitor the observance of
rituals both by the Thengalai sect and Vadagalai sect and in
the event of any violations of discipline and decorum,
initiate all appropriate action in the manner known to law
including penal actions.
(5) The third respondent / the Assistant
Commissioner/ Executive Trustee is directed to make the
above arrangements with immediate effect and videograph
the events and produce the same before this Court during
the next hearing, on 25.05.2022.
(6) The third respondent / the Assistant
Commissioner/Executive Trustee is directed to file a
Compliance Report on 25.05.2022.”
15. In W.P.No.13027 of 2021, the Executive Officer of the Temple
filed counter affidavit narrating facts leading to the filing of the writ
petition. A specific stand was taken by the Executive Officer that the
dispute between the two cults regarding the recitation of their Manthra
and Prabandhams shall be decided in the Contempt Petition No.367 of
2020 and till then, the parties are bound by the findings rendered by this
Court in A.S.No.175 of 2010, dated 15.01.1915.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
(IV). Arguments of Respective Parties:-
16.(i) Salient Features of the Arguments Advanced by the
learned Senior Counsel/Counsel Appearing for the Southern Cult:-
● The Exclusive Right of Southern Cult to the Office of the
Adhiapaka Mirasi has been recognised by earlier decisions of the
Division Bench of this Court and the same has attained finality.
● The Members of Southern Cult has got exclusive right to recite
their invocation verse or Manthra praising their Guru Manavala
Mamunigal namely Sri Sailesa Dayapatram followed by recitation
of Nalayira Divya Prabandham and Vazhi Thirunamam in the
name of their Guru during Puja Service in Sri Devaraja Swamy
Temple as recognised by the earlier judgments of this Court.
● The Southern Cult has got exclusive right to form goshti and recite
Prabandham in front of Deity during procession inside and outside
the Temple.
● When the Members of the Southern Cult perform their right
attached to their Office (Mirasi Rights) by reciting Sri Sailesa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Dayapathram, Prabandham etc., the Members of the Northern Cult
are not entitled to interfere or recite their own Manthra in praise of
their Guru Vedanta Desikar or Prabandham in their own style. As
per the earlier decisions of this Court, the Members of Northern
Cult are entitled to participate as a Worshipper and repeat what
was recited by Southern Cult's Members, who are Mirasi Holders.
● The Members of Southern Cult are entitled to form first two rows
at the time of Puja Service reciting their Manthra and
Prabandhams.
● The earlier decisions of this Court are rendered in a representative
suit as clarified in V.Srinivasachariar vs. Thatha Desika
Thathachariar and others reported in (1970) ILR 2 Mad 146 =
MANU/TN/0586/1969) and therefore, the judgments are binding
on all the individual Members of the Northern Cult. Only one
Manthra can be recited in a Temple and in respect of the Sri
Devaraja Swamy Temple, Manthra recognised by binding
precedent is Sri Sailesa Dayapatram (Manthra of Southern Cult).
In this regard, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of
Srinivasa Thathachariar and others vs. Srinivasa Aiyangar and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
others reported in 1899 9 MLJ 355. The interim direction issued
by the learned Single Judge, which was subject matter of challenge
in the writ appeals would go against the earlier binding decisions
of this Court and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. The
reasoning given by the learned Single Judge for issuing new
directions contrary to the earlier decisions on the ground that the
decisions recognising exclusive Mirasi Rights of Southern Cult are
all pre-constitutional judgments is untenable in law.
● In view of continuous interference by the Members of the Northern
Cult with regard to the Mirasi Rights of the Southern Cult, writ
petition has been filed seeking police help to prevent the violation
of the earlier decree. The writ petition filed by the Northern Cult
challenging the communication of Executive Trustee of the Temple
for enforcement of the earlier binding precedent would amount to
challenging the correctness of the Civil Court's decree, which had
attained finality and the same is not permissible.
16.(ii) Salient Features of Arguments made by the Learned
Senior Counsel/Counsel Appearing for the Northern Cult:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
● Right to recite Manthra in praise of their own Guru Vedanta
Desika is part of fundamental right to worship available to the
Members of the Northern Cult.
● The earlier judgments rendered by this Court injuncted the
Members of Northern Cult from reciting their Manthra invoking
their Guru and Prabandham in their own way would amount to
violation of constitutional right available to the Members of the
Northern Cult under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of
India.
● The prayer in the writ petition filed by the Member of Southern
Cult seeking police protection would amount to executing the
decree for injunction and hence, the Members of Northern Cult are
entitled to question the executability of the decree on the ground it
violates Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
● Under Article 182 of Old Limitation Act, 1908, the decree for
injunction shall be executed within three years, hence, execution of
decree for injunction was barred as early as 1918.
● The judgments rendered in earlier cases are not in rem and it was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
only in favour of 7 families of Southern Cult and all the Members
of Southern Cult cannot take advantage of it.
● It is submitted that the followers of Ramanuja were recognised as a
separate denomination as per the law laid down by the Apex Court
in famous Shirur Mutt case reported in (1954) 1 SCC 412 and the
Members of Southern Cult, being a sub-sect of followers of
Ramanuja can be treated as a part of denomination and hence, the
earlier judgments of this Court offend Article 26 (b) of the
Constitution of India.
● It is also submitted that if there is a conflict between the custom
and usages on one hand and fundamental rights on the other hand,
the later will prevail over the former.
● It is also submitted that the earlier judgments of this Court only
declared the Mirasi Right of Members of Southern Cult residing at
Kancheepuram and hence, the said right cannot be claimed by all
Members of Southern Cult irrespective of their residential status.
● After abolition of Hereditary Rights by amendment to Tamil Nadu
HR and CE Act, the Mirasi Rights given to the Members of
Southern Cult got extinguished.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
16.(iii) Submission made by the Government Pleader
appearing for the Official Respondents:-
● It is submitted on behalf of the Official Respondents that as on
today, the judgments rendered by this Court in earlier decisions are
binding on the parties and in any event, the Executive Trustee of
the Temple will abide by the orders of this Court and obliged to
implement the same.
(V). Points Arising for Consideration:-
17. (i) Whether the judgments rendered by this Court prior to coming
into force of Constitution of India declaring Adhiapaka Mirasi
right of Southern Cult runs contrary to right to worship/freedom
of religion available to the Members of Northern Cult under
Article 25 of Constitution of India?
(ii) Whether decree granted in earlier litigation injuncting Northern
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Cult from reciting their Manthra invoking their Guru violates right
to worship available to Members of Northern Cult under Article
26(b) of Constitution of India?
(iii) Whether Judicial Orders can be challenged on the ground of
violation of fundamental rights?
(iv) Whether relief sought for by Southern Cult in their writ petition
would amount to execution of time barred decree?
(v) Whether earlier judgments rendered by this Court declared the
right of entire Southern Cult or restricted it to Members of
Southern Cult, who are residents of Kanchipuram?
(vi) Whether abolition of hereditary servants by T.N. Act 2 of 1971
would have the effect of nullifying earlier judgments rendered in
favour of Southern Cult?
(vii) Whether Writ Appeal Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 are to be
allowed?
(viii) Whether Contempt Petition No.367 of 2020 needs to be allowed?
(ix) Whether W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 filed
by a Member of Northern Cult are to be allowed?
(x) Whether W.P.No.13027 of 2021 filed by a Member of Southern
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Cult needs to be allowed?
(VI). Discussion on the Points:-
Discussion on Point No.1:-
18. It was vehemently contended on behalf of the Northern Cult
that they have got freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, any injunction restraining the Members
of Northern Cult from reciting their own Manthra invoking their Guru or
restraining the Members of Northern Cult from reciting Nalayira Divya
Prabandham in their own way would amount to interference with their
freedom of religion and right to worship. It is no doubt true that all the
persons have got fundamental right to freedom of conscience and
worship. However, as seen from the wordings of Article 25(1) of the
Constitution of India, the said right is subject to public order, morality
and health and also to the other fundamental rights recognised under
Part-III of the Constitution of India. Right to freedom of conscience or
profess religion is also recognised as essential human right under Article
18 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
“Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either
alone or in community with others and in public or private,
to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance.”
19. Likewise, Article 18 (1) of International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights also recognised the freedom of religion, which reads as
follows:-
“Article 18 (1). Everyone shall have the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall
include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of
his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community
with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion
or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”
20. Therefore, the freedom of conscience or right to worship is a
basic human right recognised throughout the world and the scope of the
same is enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of Constitution of India.
Article 25 of Constitution of India explains the scope of individual's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
freedom of religion. Article 26 of Constitution of India explains the
scope of freedom of religion collectively available to a religious
denomination or a part of it.
21. A close reading of Article 25 of Constitution of India would
make it clear that the right to freedom of religion enshrined therein is not
an absolute right and the same is subject to the following exceptions i.e.,
public order, morality, health and to the other provisions of Part-III of
Constitution. Therefore, exercise of freedom of religion or right to
worship by one individual shall not affect the fundamental rights of other
individuals or fundamental rights of other religious denomination or part
thereof. Therefore, while examining the scope of right available to the
individuals under Article 25 of Constitution of India, the Court shall be
conscious of its limitation and the fundamental rights of other individuals
and the delicate balance between the two shall be maintained.
22. As discussed earlier, friction between the Members of Southern
Cult and Northern Cult in offering prayers to Sri Devaraja Swamy
Temple at Kancheepuram is more than 200 years old dispute. The right of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
the respective parties have been defined by authoritative pronouncement
of Division Bench of this Court in more than one occasion.
In Krishnasami Tatacharyar (1) case, a Division Bench of this Court
declared that the Members of Southern Cult got exclusive right to
Adhiapaka Miras with exception of Thodakam and the said right was
available to all the Members of Southern Cult residing at Kancheepuram.
It was also declared that the said rights shall be exercised by Members of
Southern Cult entitled to discharge the said duties at the time of Puja
Service (Ceremonial Worship) in the Temple and also at the time of
procession of Deity outside and inside the Temple. The Members of
Northern Cult had been restrained from interfering with recitation of
Manthram and Prabandham by Members of Southern Cult. However, the
Members of Northern Cult were entitled to join as ordinary worshippers.
The same can be gathered from the following observation in
Krishnasami Tatachaaryar (1) case:-
“53. There is evidence to show that the members of both sects
may join as worshippers in the Mantram and Prabhandam, but the
Mantram above allowed is the Mantram, Sri Sailesa Dayapatram and,
in joining as worshippers, the Vadakalais have no right to invade the
office of the Tenkalai Adhiapaka Mirasidars.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
(1.(1882) ILR 5 Mad 313 = MANU/TN/0085/1882)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
54. The deposition of Narasimacharyar (Exhibit 22), the report of
the Tahsildar, 20th March 1839 (Exhibit Z), and the evidence of the
second and fourth witnesses for the defendants show that the Mantaram
and Sevakalam are recited by the Adhiapaka Mirasidars on the occasion
of solemn processions as well as in the temples.
55. The plaintiff's are entitled then to be protected from
interference with their office on this occasions also.
… … … ...
59. The decree of the Court of First Instance must be reversed in
respect of the declaration that the office of Thodakam and its honours
and emoluments belong to the Tenkalais. The declaration that the
Adhiapaka Miras, with the exception of the Thodakam, is the exclusive
right of the Tenkalais, and that it appertains to all the members of that
sect residing at Conjeeveram, must be affirmed, and it must be declared
that the Tenkalais are entitled to discharge the duties on all occasions
in which the ceremony is performed, as well at the time of processions
as at services in the pagodas, and the Vadakalai defendants must be
enjoined to abstain from interfering with the Tenkalais in the recital of
the Mantram and Prabhandam otherwise than as ordinary
worshippers. ... ... ... ...”
(emphasis supplied by this Court)
23. In Tirumalai Eachambadi Thiruvengadachariar (2) case,
while declaring various rights available to the Members of Southern Cult
during ceremonial worship of God in the Temple and during procession
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
(2.1915 MWN (Civil) 281 = MANU/TN/0840/1915)
of Deity, a Division Bench of this Court made following observations:-
“8. It appears to be admitted that the Adhyapakam
service consists of thodakam, mantram and the Tamil
prabandhams. The thodakam is the call to prayer. ... ... ... ...
9. The dispute between the parties is whether the
Vadagalais are entitled to repeat the Vadagalai mantram on
any occasion within the temple and whether they are bound
to repeat the same verses in the prabandhams as the
Tengalais or whether they may repeat any portion of the
prabandham though it may happen to be different from that
which is at that time being repeated by the Tengalais. The
dispute has been going on between the parties for a very
long time.
... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
12. After this we have the litigation started in 1879
between the Tengalais and the Thathachariars. In that case
the final decision of the High Court was that the members of
both the sects may join as worshippers in the mantram and
the prabandham, but the mantram is the Sri Sailesa Daya
Patram and in joining as worshippers, the Vadagalais had
no right to invade the office of the Tengalai Adhyapakam
mirasdars who have got the exclusive right of discharging
the duties on all occasions in which the Adhyapakam
ceremony is performed as well at the time of processions as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
at services in the pagodas, and those Vadagalais who were
defendants in the suit were enjoined to abstain from
interference with the Tengalais in the recital of the mantram
and prabandkam otherwise than as ordinary worshippers.
... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
16 . These decisions supported by the documents to
which we have referred place beyond all doubt that the
Tengalais of Conjeevaram have got the Adhyapakam miras
and that it consists of the right of chanting the mantram of
Sri Sailesa Daya Patram and also the exclusive right of
reciting the usual Tamil prabhandhams inside the temple.
They establish that the Tengalais are entitled to discharge
the duties on all occasions in which the ceremony is
performed. ... ... ... ...
17. ... ... ... ... The judgment of the High Court in the
Srivilliputhur case (Exhibit EEE), Srinivasa Thathnchanar
v. Srinivasa Aiyangar and Srinivasachariar v. Srinivasa
Thathachariar 9 M.L.J. 355, holds that only one mantram
can be recited in a temple. This appears also reasonable.
That the resident Tengalais have got a superior right to the
Tengalais who do not reside in Conjeevaram and to all
Vadagalais cannot be dented. They have got the mirasi, i.e.,
the office to recite the prayers in question and receive the
emoluments of the office. It is not likely that other persons
also would be entitled to perform the duties of the office.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Recital of a different mantram or prabandham during any
ceremonial worship or by any goshti would be performance
of the duties of that office. That Sri Sailesh Daya Patram is
the only mantram that is repeated appears also from the
evidence of the 4th witness for the defendants, who is a
Vadagalai and a trustee of this temple. He said that this is
being done on account of the agreements into which the
parties had entered. We are, therefore, of opinion that it is
only the Tengalai mantram of Sri Sailesh Daya Patram that
may be recited within the temple during any ceremonial
worship or by any goshti. We must accordingly modify the
decree of the District Judge on this point.
18. So far as the prabandham is concerned at the time
of the puja, the Tengalais being the mirasdars have the right
to recite it and the Vadaglais are entitled to join in the
recitation only as worshippers, that is to say, they must
repeat the same portions of the prabandham as the
Tengalais. ... ... ... ...
19. ... ... ... ... We can only decide the question whether
any act would be an interference with the Adhyapakam
miras of the Conjeevaram Tengalais. Any interference in the
puja from its commencement with the ringing of the bells to
its close with the distribution of the theertham and
prasadam is, we have held, a violation of the plaintiffs'
mirasi right. The processions are a part of the worship.
Vadagalais cannot therefore form any goshti of their own
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
and repeat any prabandham which is different from that
portion of the prabandham which is being recited by the
mirasdars. The right of any individual Vadagalai to worship
the deity without interfering with others by the recital of any
appropriate mantrams or prabandhams, etc., in a temple is
very different from the right to form a goshti or
congregation of his own sect and recite anything different
from the prabandhams which are recited by the mirasdars.
... ... ... ...
20. ... ... ... ... The right to go in procession has now
been recognized by a series of decisions in India and the
right has also been upheld by the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council. When the Tengalais, therefore, carry the idol
in procession, they are entitled to do so without any
disturbance. The drummers, etc., march at the head of the
procession; then the Tengalais form what is called the
prabandhams in which the Vadagalais are entitled to join as
ordinary worshippers. But it is not denied that the
Vadagalais are not entitled at that time to recite their own
mantram or any other prabandham. This is in front of the
idol. Behind the idol comes the Vadagalai Vedic goshti
reciting the Vedas, etc. The Tengalais are entitled to join it
as ordinary worshippers, subject to the same restrictions as
Vadagalais when they join the prabandkam goshti in front.
... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
22. As to the goshti in front, it stands on a different
footing. The recital of the prabandhams in front of the idol
is considered more appropriate than behind the idol, and
the Vadagalais insist upon their claim to do soon that
ground. But we think the Judge is right in holding that this
should not be allowed. The recitation of the prabandhams
and the mantrams in front of the idol can only be intended
as a worship of the idol. If it is not intended as such, then
there is no reason for insisting that they must be allowed to
march in front, and the right to carry on such ceremonial
worship resides in the resident Tengalais. ... ... ... ...”
(emphasis supplied by this Court)
24. In M.Appadorai Aiyangar (3) case, while explaining the various
stages of Adhiapakam Service, this Court observed as follows:-
“1. ... ... ... ... The learned judges pointed out that the
service consisted originally of the Thodakkam or the
invocation to prayer, followed by the Mantram in praise of the
Guru, after which comes the main part of the service
consisting of the recitation of the Prabandams in the Tamil
language. The learned Judges observed that the Thodakkam
office had been by consent entrusted to a particular family of
Vadagalais, that no one was at that time performing the
service and that if it be true that the family to which this
service was entrusted had become extinct, the united sects
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
should elect a common representative to the office of
Thodakkadar, which office, it was held, had become severed
from the main Adyapakam services, so that any right of the
Thengalais as mirasdars to hold that office had been lost.
Except the Thodakkam office it was declared that the
Adyapakam miras belonged exclusively to the Thengalais
residing at Conjeevaram who were entitled to discharge the
ditties of the office both inside the temple and in processions
outside the temple, the Vadagalais being restrained
3. (AIR 1939 Mad 102 = MANU/TN/0027/1938)
from interfering with the Thengalais in the recital of the
Mantram and Prabandams other wise than as ordinary
worshippers. ... ... ... ...
2. The learned District Judge observes in paragraph 7
that the Adyapakam service consists mainly in the recitation of
the Prabandam preceded by the recitation of the Mantram or
hymn, and followed by the recitation of a stanza in honour of
the saint who was invoked by the hymn chanted at the
beginning. That is to say it is recognised that the Vazhi
Thirunamam is the appropriate conclusion of the Adyapakam
service and that the stanza recited must be in honour of the
saint invoked in the Mantram which begins the service. ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
4. This judgment of the District Judge, Chingleput, was
considered in appeal. The appellate judgment is reported in
Thirnvengadachariar v. Krishnaswami Thathachariar (1915)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
M.W.N. 281. The High Court substantially confirmed the
District Judge's decree and held that only one Mantram may
be recited, namely, that of the Thengalai mirasdars, that the
recital of a different Mantram or Prabandam during any
ceremonial worship or by any ghoshti would be an
interference with the duties of the office and that any
interference in the Puja from its commencement with the
ringing of the bells to its close with the distribution of
Theertham and Prasadam is a violation of the plaintiff's mirasi
rights. There is no specific reference in the judgment to the
Vazhi Thirunamam and the decree as modified by the High
Court runs as follows:
That it is only the Thengalai Mantram of Sri
Sailesa Daya Patram that may be recited within the temple
during any ceremonial worship or by any Ghoshti and that
Vadagalais are only entitled to join the Thengalai Adyapakam
Ghoshti as worshippers by reciting the same portion of the
Prabandam that is being recited by the Adyapaka mirasdars;
that the defendants the Vadagalais be restrained from reciting
their own mantrams and Prabandams during the Puja period,
that is, from the commencement of the Puja to the close thereof
by the distribution of the Thirtham and Prasadam, etc.
5. This decree though it does not in so many words
prescribe the singing of the Thengalai Vazhi Thirunamam by
the mirasdars does very clearly prescribe the conduct of the
whole Adyapakam service right up to its termination by those
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
mirasdars. It restrains the Vadagalais from singing their own
sectarian hymns and chants or taking any part except by
joining the Ghoshti as worshippers and reciting the
Prabandams recited by the mirasdars.
... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
13. ... ... ... ... Obviously, the mirasdars who have the
duty to lead the service must be protected in the exercise of
their duty. It has been recognised that the plaintiffs
(Vadagalai-expression supplied by this Court) have the right to
join in the service as ordinary worshippers without interfering
in the conduct of the service by the mirasdars. … … … ...”
25. In V.Srinivasachariar (4) case, a Division Bench of this Court
while explaining the scope of right available to the Members of Southern
Cult observed as follows:-
“22. ... ... ... ... The decree in Appeal Suit No. 175 of
1910, makes it clear beyond any doubt that during the pooja
period the Vadakalais are entitled only to join the
Thenkalais Athyapakam goshti or worshippers and recite
the same portion of the prabhandham that is being recited
by the Athyapakam mirasidars and that the Vadakalais are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
not entitled to recite their own mantrams and prabhandams
during the pooja period.
23. ... ... ... ... The prohibition against Vadakalais in
the matter of reciting mantram or prabhandham of their
own is absolutely unqualified and there is no room for the
Vadakalais to contend that the prohibition does not extend
to the recitation of Sri Desikar's Tamil prabhandham.
... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
27. On a consideration of the evidence, we have no
doubt in holding that the custom and usage pleaded by the
Plaintiff are not true. We have also no hesitation in holding,
upon the authorities of the decisions binding upon the
parties that the custom and usage pleaded by the Plaintiff
go directly counter to those decisions. We have no
doubt that
(4. (1970) ILR 2 Mad 146 = MANU/TN/0586/1969)
the attempt of the Vadakalais in this litigation is to
introduce and establish an innovation opposed to the
decisions binding on them Mr. Venkatavaradachariar,
appearing for Defendants 4 and 5, urged, with some amount
of justification, that this attitude of the Vadakalais in putting
forward some innovation or other in one form or another
from time to time has been responsible for the series of
litigations pertaining to this temple going on for the last two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
centuries. In Thathachariar v. Thirwvenkdtachariar 1915
M.W.N. 916 920. Sadasiva Ayyar J., had occasion to make
some adverse remarks against the attitude of the Vadakalais
wherein the learned Judge has pointed out that the
litigation in that case was the result of the action of a small,
though influential, faction of Vadakalai sectarians residing
in Kancheepuram by introducing innovations in customary
practices during the period of regular official worship in
the temple. ... ... ... ...”
26. The extract of observations and findings of this Court in the
above mentioned decisions make it clear that the Members of Southern
Cult, who are residents of Kancheepuram have got exclusive right to
Office of Adhiapaka Mirasi. As Office Holders, they are entitled to recite
their Manthram namely Sri Sailesa Dayapatram and invoke their Guru.
Followed by the invocation, they are entitled to recite Nalayira Divya
Prabandham in their own way. Finally, at the time of conclusion they are
entitled to recite their Vazhi Thirunamam praising their own Guru
Manavala Mamunigal. This Adhiapaka Mirasi right shall be exercised by
the Members of the Southern Cult during Ceremonial Worship (Puja
Service) of Deity in the Temple. During Ceremonial Worship, when
Members of Southern Cult perform their duties in their capacity as Office
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Holders of Adhiapaka Mirasi, the Members of Northern Cult are not
entitled to recite their Manthra in praise of their Guru or recite their
Prabandham in their own way. However, the Members of Northern Cult,
in their capacity as ordinary worshippers of God are entitled to join by
repeating the Manthras or Prabandhams recited by Members of Southern
Cult, who are Office Holders. Therefore, it is clear that the right to
worship available to the Members of Northern Cult is preserved. The
restriction imposed on Members of Northern Cult with regard to the
recitation of Manthra and Prabandham is restricted to the time, during
which the Ceremonial Worship of Deity is going on in the Temple.
27. In our considered view, the right to worship or freedom of
religion available to individual Members of Northern Cult are not
affected by these decisions. The individual Members of Northern Cult or
any other worshippers can very well participate in the Ceremonial
Worship of God by repeating what is recited by Office Holders doing
Adhiapaka Service. This Court in earlier decisions declared the rights
available to the Members of Southern Cult of Kancheepuram to perform
certain duties in their capacity as Adhiapaka Service Office Holders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Performance of services like recitation of Manthra, recitation of
Prabandham and recitation of Thiruvaimozhi etc., are all within the
exclusive domain of Office Holders and ordinary worshippers or any
Member of Northern Cult cannot infringe such rights. The Official
Services shall be performed only by the recognised Office Holders. As
far as Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple at Kancheepuram is concerned, these
Official Services during Ceremonial Worship of God shall be performed
only by the Office Holders namely the Members of Southern Cult,
residing at Kancheepuram.
28. No ordinary devotee or non-office holder including the
Members of Northern Cult are entitled to claim that they are also entitled
to perform the official services in the Temple. For example, in every
Temple in this part of the world, only the Official Priest of the Temple is
entitled to enter "Sanctum Sanctorum" and perform Pujas. There are
other Office Holders like Puja Assistants, who can render certain
supplementary services during the period of Ceremonial Worship (fhy
Puja). Likewise, only the person holding the office of Othuvar is entitled
to recite holy verses in front of the God during Ceremonial Worship or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
official Puja. An ordinary worshipper, who is not an office holder, is not
entitled to say that he can also perform the official services which are to
be performed by Office Holders. An ordinary Devotee cannot emulate the
role of Official Priest, Puja Assistants or Othurvar during performance of
Official Puja by the Office Holders. The ordinary devotees are entitled to
worship the God without interfering the performance of official duties by
the Office Holders. When rendition of holy verses by Othuvars are going
on, an ordinary worshipper in the guise of exercising his freedom of
religion or right to worship cannot loudly recite his own poem as per his
wish so as to interfere with the performance of official duties by the
Office Holder. If such acts by individual worshippers are allowed during
Ceremonial Worship time, the conducive atmosphere in the Temple
during Ceremonial Worship will get vitiated and people will not be in a
position to have peaceful worship of God. Therefore, by no stretch of
imagination, we can say that an ordinary worshipper of a Temple is
entitled to recite his own holy songs, poems etc., loudly, so as to vitiate
the atmosphere or perform certain services to God exclusively reserved
for office holders. The right to freedom of religion enshrined under
Articles 25 and 26 of Constitution of India cannot be expanded to affect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
the rights of Office Holders and to vitiate the peaceful atmosphere in the
Temple. If such things are permitted, certainly it will affect the right to
worship available to the other devotees.
29. As mentioned earlier, the right to freedom of religion or
worship available to individuals are subject to restrictions mentioned
under Article 25(1) of Constitution of India. Such right is subject to
public order. In order to maintain the public order during Ceremonial
Worship of God in Temple, only the Office Holders shall be allowed to
perform their duties and services, the ordinary worshipppers can only
have glimpses of God, if at all they can recite their holy verses within
their mind without making any noise so as to affect the official service by
Office Holders. The restriction imposed in the decree passed by this
Court in earlier litigations injuncting the Members of the Northern Cult
from reciting their own Manthra or Prabandhams in their own way during
Ceremonial Worship of God will certainly come under the exception
recognised under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India namely the
public order. The object is to preserve the peaceful atmosphere of the
Temple to facilitate free worship by all Members of the public. Even
though 3 out of 4 decisions mentioned above were delivered prior to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
coming into force of Indian Constitution, this Court recognised
individual right of ordinary worshippers including the Members of
Northern Cult by permitting them to join the worship by repeating what
was recited by the Office Holders namely the Members of Southern Cult.
As we mentioned earlier, right to freedom of religion and worship is not
only a fundamental right but it is also recognised as a basic human right,
therefore, this Court while delivering judgments in the litigations
between the Members of Southern Cult and Northern Cult was conscious
of the individual rights of worshippers and preserved their right. It would
be appropriate to extract certain observations in the earlier judgments,
which reiterates the limited right of worship available to the individual
worshippers as against the right of Office Holders. In Krishnasami
Tatachaaryar (1) case, this Court observed as follows:-
“53. There is evidence to show that the members
of both sects may join as worshippers in the Mantram
and Prabhandam, but the Mantram above allowed is
the Mantram, Sri Sailesa Dayapatram and, in joining
as worshippers, the Vadakalais have no right to invade
the office of the Tenkalai Adhiapaka Mirasidars.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
(1.(1882) ILR 5 Mad 313 = MANU/TN/0085/1882)
30. In Ayya Raghunatha Thathachariar and others vs.
Thirumalai Echambadi Thiruvengadachariar and others reported in
1915 MWN (Civil) 916 = MANU/TN/0443/1915, while giving nutshell
of the earlier decisions, a Division Bench of this Court observed as
follows:-
“5. After hearing full arguments, I think that the
learned Judges' decision involved the following findings
and issues:
(a) The Vadagalai defendants are entitled to recite any
portion of the Tamil Vtdas, called Prabhandham either
at the time of the processions within the temple or at
other places in the temple of Varadarajah Swami at
Conjeeveram where the Thengalais do not carry on the
worship. There is nothing in the law to prevent any
Vadagalai from worshipping the deities consistently
with the equal rights of other worshippers. There is
nothing to prevent any Vadagalai from reciting any
portion of the Prabandham separately and as an act of
personal devotion. But it would be an interference in
the regular poojah or worship within the temple
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
between the time of its commencement (with the
ringing of the bells) and its close (with the distribution
of Thirtham and Prasadham) and it would be a
violation also of the Tengalai plaintiffs' mirasi
Adyapakam office right if the Vadagalais form a goshti
or a congregation of their own and repeat a portion of
the Tamil Vedas which is different from that portion of
the Tamil Vedas which is being recited as a part of the
regular temple worship by the Tengalai mirasidars
during the time of such worship within the temple.
(b) That when a procession is taken along the public
streets outside the temple according to the temple
customary practice, that procession is a compact
organised procession from the front portion of that
procession, which begins at the spot in front of the
carved image of the deity where the Tengalai miras
office-holders recite in a congregation the Tamil Vedas,
up to the point behind the vehicle of the image where
the Vadagalai office-holders recite the Sanskrit Vedas.
(c) That the Vadagalais are entitled to join the Tengalai
goshti reciting the Tamil Vedas and join that chanting
with the Tengalai office-holders but should not chant a
different portion of the Tamil Vedas (similarly as
regards the right of the Tengalais to join the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Vadagalais' Sanskrit Veda, reciting goshti in the rear-
subject to similar restrictions).
(d) The Vadagalais should not, however, form an
organised congregation or ghosti of their own between
the front end and back end of the religious procession
and chant the Tamil Vedas as a separate group, as that
will be setting up a rival right as against Tengalai
miras office-holders and will be an interference with
such rights, whereas the recital by an individual
Vadagalai devotee of a stanza or stanzas in the Tamil
Vedas is a bona fide devotional act of private worship
even when he has joined the procession as an
individual worshipper, and it would not be an
interference with the congregational recitalled by the
Tengalai miras officials.
(e) There is nothing to prevent the Vadagalais from
even forming an organised goshti and reciting Tamil
Vedas or anything they like at a reasonable distance in
front of the Tengalai Tamil Veda-reciting coshti which
begins the procession, or at a reasonable distance
behind the temple procession which ends with the
Sanskrit Veda-reciting goshti.
… … … ...
“10. ... ... ... ... It is only the claim of this faction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
among the Vadagalais to introduce innovations into the
customary practices during the period of the regular official
worship in the temple and into and within the organised
processional body during the carrying on of the customary
processions outside the temple and their attempts to create
disturbance to the public peace that have been properly, if I
may say so, restrained by the judgment.”
(emphasis supplied by this Court)
31. After holding so, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed
the application filed by the Members of Northern Cult seeking leave to
file an appeal against the decision mentioned in Tirumalai Eachambadi
Thiruvengadachariar (2) case.
32. In M.Appadorai Aiyangar (3) case, this Court observed as
follows:-
“13. ... ... ... ... Obviously, the mirasdars who have the
duty to lead the service must be protected in the exercise of
their duty. It has been recognised that the plaintiffs have the
right to join in the service as ordinary worshippers without
interfering in the conduct of the service by the mirasdars.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
33. The observations of this Court extracted above make it clear
that even before coming into force of Constitution of India, this Court
was conscious of the right to worship available to individual worshippers
and held that the Members of Northern Cult, as ordinary worshippers, are
entitled to join and repeat what was recited by the Office Holders
at the time of Ceremonial Worship in Temple and Ceremonial Procession.
(2.1915 MWN (Civil) 281 = MANU/TN/0840/1915)
(3. AIR 1939 Mad 102 = MANU/TN/0027/1938)
Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the
judgment and decree passed by this Court in the above mentioned
decisions do not interfere with the fundamental right to worship or
freedom of religion enshrined under Article 25 of Constitution of India.
34. The interplay between the right available to the Members of
Southern Cult in their capacity as Office Holders of certain services and
right to worship available to the individuals including the Members of
Northern Cult can be considered in a different angle. The decision of the
Apex Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras,
vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt reported in
(1954) 1 SCC 412 has been pressed into service by the learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
for Northern Cult to claim that the Northern Cult is a section of
denomination within the meaning of Article 26 of Constitution of India.
The right of Southern Cult as a section of denomination will be dealt
with while considering Point No.2. The relevant observation in Shirur
Mutt case reads as follows:-
“16. As regards Article 26, the first question is, what
is the precise meaning or connotation of the expression
"religious denomination" and whether a Math could come
within this expression. The word "denomination" has been
defined in the Oxford Dictionary to mean "a collection of
individuals classed together under same name : a religious
sect or body having a common faith and organisation and
designated by a distinctive name." It is well know that the
practice of setting up Maths as centres of theological
teaching was stated by Shri Sankaracharya and was
followed by various teachers since then. After Sankara,
came a galaxy of religious teachers and philosophers who
founded the different sects and sub-sects of the Hindu
religion that we find in India at the present day. Each one of
such sects or sub-sects can certainly be called a religious
denomination, as it is designated by a distinctive name - in
many cases it is the name of the founder - and has a
common faith and common spiritual organization. The
followers of Ramanuja, who are known by the name of Shri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Vaishnabas, undoubtedly constitute a religious
denomination; and so do the followers of Madhwacharya
and other religious teachers. ... ... ... ...”
35. Therefore, it is clear that the followers of Ramanuja are
recognised as a Hindu Religious Denomination. It is not in dispute that
both the Gurus' of Southern Cult and Northern Cult namely Manavala
Mamunigal and Vedanta Desika were followers of Ramanuja. Therefore,
if the Northern Cult is accepted as a sub-sect of larger denomination
(followers of Ramanuja), out of same logic, the Members of Southern
Cult shall also be treated as a sub-sect of a denomination. The right
available under Article 26 of Constitution of India is not only available to
a religious denomination but the same is also available to any section
thereof. Therefore, the right available to denomination or any section
thereof recognised under Article 26 is also available to the Members of
the Southern Cult. Hence, under Article 26(c) of Constitution of India,
the Members of Southern Cult in their capacity as a section of
denomination are entitled to own and acquire movable and immovable
properties. It is settled law that right to office having beneficial interest is
akin to right to property. The Mirasi Right of Members of Southern Cult
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
is a perfect blend of religious right as well as property right. Therefore,
the Members of Southern Cult, as recognised by earlier decisions of this
Court are entitled to Office of Adhiapaka Service and the said office right
is protected under Article 26 (c) and (d) of Constitution of India. When
the right to office available to the Members of Southern Cult of
Kancheepuram is protected under Article 26(c) and (d) of Constitution of
India, the individual Members of Northern Cult in the guise of exercising
their right to worship or freedom of religion cannot interfere with the
right to office and duties attached thereto which are available to the
Members of Southern Cult. Hence, the right to office recognised by the
Civil Court decree in the earlier decisions are no less than fundamental
rights available to individual worshippers. It cannot be treated as
ordinary right to property and by virtue of the fact that Southern Cult can
be treated as a section of denomination, the right to office recognised by
the Civil Court decree available to them is protected under Article 26 (c)
and (d) of Constitution of India. Hence, the injunction granted by the
Civil Court against the Members of Northern Cult from interfering with
the right to office available to the Members of Southern Cult will no way
offend the freedom of religion available to the Members of Northern Cult
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
under Article 25 of Constitution of India. The Point No.1 is accordingly
answered in favour of Members of Southern Cult.
Discussion on Point No.2:-
36. As discussed earlier, in Shirur Mutt case, the followers of
Ramanuja were held to be forming a separate denomination and
therefore, the sub-sects of Ramanuja’s followers namely the Southern
Cult and Northern Cult respectively, can be treated as a section of
denomination. In the earlier point, We have concluded that the rights to
office declared in favour of Southern Cult by this Court in earlier decrees
is a blend of religious and property right and the same is protected under
Article 26 (c) and (d) of Constitution of India. If the Members of
Northern Cult are allowed to recite their own Manthra or Prabandhams in
their own way during Ceremonial Worship in the Temple or during
procession of the Deity inside and outside the Temple, it will certainly
interfere with the rights available to the Southern Cult in their capacity as
Adhiapaka Mirasi Office Holders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
37. A close reading of judgment rendered by this Court between
two cults referred above would indicate that the Office Holders rendering
Adhiapaka Miras Service are entitled to certain voluntary contributions
and also a share in the rice cakes offered in the Temple. Therefore, the
Office to which the Southern Cult are held to be entitled is not only
attached with certain religious duties but they are also entitled to certain
emoluments by virtue of their service. Hence, the Office of Adhiapaka
Miras given to the Members of Southern Cult, a section of denomination,
is a blend of religious rights and property rights. Therefore, the
Adhiapaka Miras right recognised by this Court includes certain
proprietary right which can be equated to property. Hence, it is entitled to
protection under Section 26 (c) and (d) of Constitution of India. As
mentioned earlier, the Civil Court decree does not prevent the Members
of Northern Cult from exercising their individual right of worship but it
only injuncted them from interfering with right of office available to the
Members of Southern Cult during Ceremonial Worship and Ceremonial
Procession. Therefore, the right to manage affairs in the matters of
religion available to the Members of Northern Cult is not at all affected.
In any event, in order to maintain public order in the Temple at the time
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
of Ceremonial Worship and at the time of Ceremonial Procession, this
Court injunted the Members of Northern Cult from reciting their own
Manthra or Prabandham in their own way. The said restriction imposed in
the decree passed by this Court will certainly come within the exception
recognised under Article 26 of Constitution of India. Therefore, we hold
that right to worship available to the Members of Northern Cult under
Article 26(b) of the Constitution of India is not at all affected.
38. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sardar
Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb vs. The State of Bombay reported in
AIR 1962 SC 853 = (1962) Supp (2) SCR 496 = MANU/SC/0072/1962,
while explaining the scope of Articles 25 and 26 of Constitution of India
observed as follows:-
“38. The content of Arts. 25 and 26 of the
Constitution came up for consideration before this Court in
the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Madras v.
Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Matt (1);
Mahant Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. The State of Orissa (2);
Sri Venkatamana Devaru v. The State of Mysore (3); Durgah
Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali (4) and several other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
cases and the main principles underlying these provisions
have by these decisions been placed beyond controversy.
The first is that the protection of these articles is not limited
to matters of doctrine or belief they extend also to acts done
in pursuance of religion and therefore contain a guarantee
for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of
worship which are integral parts of religion. The second is
that what constitutes an essential part of a religious or
religious practice has to be decided by the courts with
reference to the doctrine of a particular religion and include
practices which are regarded by the community as a part of
its religion.”
39. In the case on hand, in the earlier litigations, factually it was
found by this Court that Members of the Southern Cult are entitled to
recite their own Manthram followed by Prabandham and conclude it by
reciting Vazhi Thirunamam of their Guru-Manavala Mamunigal.
Performance of these services by Members of Southern Cult is a part of
Ceremonial Worship of God in the Temple namely Sri Devarajaswamy
Temple. The religious freedom guaranteed under constitution also
extends to rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worship.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
40. In these circumstances, we have already held following the
judgment in Shirur Mutt case that Members of Southern Cult is a section
of denomination. The right to rituals and ceremonies available to the
Members of Southern Cult is blended with right to office of Mirasi. The
duties performed by Members of Southern Cult as Mirasi Office Holders
of Temple like recitation of Manthra, recitation of Nalayira Divya
Prabandham, Vazhi Thirunamam etc., are purely religious in nature. It is
all part of rituals and ceremonies in the Temple. The said right available
to the Members of Southern Cult is purely religious in nature and
therefore, it is protected under Article 26(b) of Constitution of India as
held by Constitution Bench in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb
case cited supra. Right to worship available to the individuals cannot
interfere with the right to ceremonies and rituals available to the
Members of denomination or part thereof, by virtue of right to office
available to the Members of Southern Cult. The said right is superior
than the right to worship available to the non-members of Southern Cult
including Northern Cult and hence, non-members of Southern Cult in the
guise of exercise of their right to worship cannot interfere with official
functions of Southern Cult during performance of Ceremonial Worship,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
which is protected under Article 26 (b) of Constitution of India.
Discussion on Point No.3:-
41. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Northern Cult
primarily contended that the earlier decisions of this court referred above,
violate their fundamental rights to worship and hence, the same cannot
be enforced. The earliest decision relied on by the Members of Southern
Cult is more than a century old. The latest judgment relied on by the
Southern Cult delivered 55 years ago. All these decisions have attained
finality as not being challenged in the manner known to law before the
Superior Courts. In these circumstances, a question arises for
consideration as to tenability of contention raised by the Members of
Northern Cult that the judicial orders, which attained finality can be
challenged on the ground of violation of fundamental rights. The said
question is no longer res integra in view of law laid down by the Nine
Member Bench of the Apex Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and
others vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1967 SC 1
and decisions of the Apex Court in Triveniben vs. State of Gurajat
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
reported in AIR 1989 SC 1335 = (1989) 1 SCC 678 and Riju Prasad
Sarma and others vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2015) 9
SCC 461 = MANU/SC/0722/2015.
42. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar case, the Apex Court concluded
that judicial orders passed by the Courts cannot be a subject matter of
challenge in writ proceedings on the ground of violation of fundamental
rights and no Writ of Certiorari would lie against the judicial orders. The
relevant observation of the Apex Court reads as follows:-
“51. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to
another aspect of the matter, and that has relation to the
nature and extent of this Court's jurisdiction to issue writs
of certiorari under Article 32(2). Mr Setalvad has conceded
that if a court of competent jurisdiction makes an order in a
proceeding before it, and the order is inter-partes, its
validity cannot be challenged by invoking the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 32, though the said order may
affect the aggrieved party's fundamental rights. His whole
argument before us has been that the impugned order
affects the fundamental rights of a stranger to the
proceedings before the Court; and that, he contends,
justifies the petitioners in moving this Court under Article
32. It is necessary to examine the validity of this argument.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
58. We have referred to these decisions to illustrate
how the jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari has been
exercised either by the High Courts under Article 226 or by
this Court under Article 32. Bearing these principles in
mind, let us enquire whether the order impugned in the
present proceedings can be said to be amenable to the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32. We have already
seen that the impugned order was passed by the learned
Judge after hearing the parties and it was passed
presumably because he was satisfied that the ends of justice
required that Mr Goda should be given protection by
prohibiting the publication of his evidence in the
newspapers during the course of the trial. This matter was
directly related to the trial of the suit; and in exercise of his
inherent power, the learned Judge made the order in the
interests of justice. The order in one sense is inter-partes,
because it was passed after hearing arguments on both the
sides. In another sense, it is not inter-partes inasmuch as it
prohibits strangers like the petitioners from publishing Mr
Goda's evidence in the newspapers. In fact, an order of this
kind would always be passed after hearing parties before
the Court and would in every case affect the right of
strangers like the petitioners who, as Journalists, are
interested in publishing court proceedings in newspapers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Can it be said that there is such a difference between
normal orders passed inter-partes in judicial proceedings,
and the present order that it should be open to the strangers
are who affected by the order to move this Court under
Article 32. The order, no doubt, binds the strangers; but,
nevertheless, it is a judicial order and a person aggrieved
by it, though a stranger, can move this Court by appeal
under Article 136 of the Constitution. Principles of res
judicata have been applied by this Court in dealing with
petitions filed before this Court under Article 32 in Daryao
v. State of U.P. We apprehend that somewhat similar
considerations would apply to the present proceedings. If a
judicial order like the one with which we are concerned in
the present proceedings made by the High Court binds
strangers, the strangers may challenge the order by taking
appropriate proceedings in appeal under Article 136. It
would, however, not be open to them to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 and contend that
a writ of certiorari should be issued in respect of it. The
impugned order is passed in exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of the Court and its validity is not open to be
challenged by writ proceedings.”
(Emphasis Supplied by this Court)
43. In Triveniben case cited supra while considering the similar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
question, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court followed the
earlier decision of Nine Member Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar case and observed as follows:-
“26. ... ... ... ... The judicial verdict pronounced by
court in relation to a matter cannot be challenged on the
ground that it violates one's fundamental right. The
judgment of a court cannot be said to affect the fundamental
rights of citizens. (See Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar case 1963
(3) SCR 744).”
44. Interestingly, in a subsequent judgment in Riju Prasad Sarma
case cited supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered whether Judiciary
can be included in the expression 'State' within the meaning of Article 12
of Constitution of India. The Apex Court concluded that while acting on
judicial side, the Courts are not coming within the definition of
expression 'State'. However, while functioning on administrative side, the
courts will fall within the meaning of expression 'State'. The relevant
observation of the Apex Court reads as follows:-
“60. On the related issue of the scope of Article 12
and whether for the purposes of issuance of writ, judicial
decisions by the judiciary can be included in State action,
we are in agreement with the submissions advanced by Mr.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Rajiv Dhavan that definition of ‘the State’ under Article 12
is contextual depending upon all relevant facts including the
concerned provisions in Part III of the Constitution. The
definition is clearly inclusive and not exhaustive. Hence
omission of judiciary when the government and Parliament
of India as well as government and legislature of each of the
State has been included is conspicuous but not conclusive
that judiciary must be excluded. Relevant case laws cited by
Mr. Dhavan are:-
(i) Pradeep Kr. Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical
Biology and Ors. MANU/SC/0330/2002 : (2002) 5
SCC 111
(ii) Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra And Anr. MANU/SC/0044/1966 : (1966)
3 SCR 744
(iii) Triveniben v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0520/1989
: (1989) 1 SCC 678
(iv) Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar MANU/SC/0187/2010 :
(2010) 4 SCC 460
61. Hence, in accordance with such judgments
holding that judgments of High Court and Supreme Court
cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction and for want of
requisite governmental control, Judiciary cannot be a State
under Article 12, we also hold that while acting on the
judicial side the courts are not included in the definition of
the State. Only when they deal with their employees or act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
in other matters purely in administrative capacity, the
courts may fall within the definition of the State for
attracting writ jurisdiction against their administrative
actions only. In our view, such a contextual interpretation
must be preferred because it shall promote justice,
especially through impartial adjudication in matters of
protection of fundamental rights governed by Part III of the
Constitution.” (Emphasis supplied by this Court)
45. A close scanning of above mentioned decisions of the Apex
Court lead us to a definite conclusion that while exercising power on
judicial side, the courts will not come under the definition of the word
'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India.
However, while functioning on administrative side, the courts can be
treated as a State and hence, its administrative decisions can be
questioned on the ground of violation of fundamental rights. Therefore, it
is very well settled by the decision of Nine Member Bench of Hon'ble
Apex Court, which was followed consistently in the subsequent
judgments, the judical orders passed by the Courts cannot be challenged
on the ground of violation of fundamental rights and no Writ of
Certiorari will lie against judicial orders. In case a person is aggrieved by
judicial orders, aggrieved party, irrespective of the fact whether he is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
party to the litigation or not, can challenge the same only in the manner
known to law either before the very same Court which passed orders or
before the Higher Forum. If he is a party to the lis, he can challenge it as
a matter of right. If he is not a party to the lis and still aggrieved by the
decision, he can challenge it after getting leave of the Court. Therefore, a
judicial order which attained finality cannot be challenged on the ground
that it is violative of fundamental rights. Point No.3 is answered
accordingly against the Northern Cult and in favour of the Southern Cult.
Discussion on Point No.4:-
46. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the Northern Cult that the prayer sought for by one of the Members of
Southern Cult seeking police protection for exercising their right would
amount to executing the decree for injunction which was already time
barred. By relying on Article 182 of Old Limitation Act 1908, it was
contended that the decree for injunction should have been executed
within three years from the date of decree and the three years period was
already over. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for
Northern Cult, the prayer sought for by the petitioner is time barred. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Members of the Southern Cult filed a contempt petition to punish the
Executive Trustee for disobedience to the order passed in the year 1915.
The said petition was filed by invoking plenary power available to this
Court to punish a person for contempt of Court for disobedience to the
orders passed by this Court. Power to punish for contempt or violation of
the order passed by this Court cannot be equated with execution of the
decree. Therefore, this Court is not impressed by the submission made by
the learned counsel appearing for the Northern Cult.
47. As far as decree for injunction is concerned, the same need not
be executed or enforced unless it is violated. If the defendant complied
with the decree promptly, there is no need to enforce it by seeking his
arrest or attachment of property. The enforcement of decree for
injunction will arise only in case of violation. Any violation at any distant
point of time will constitute a separate cause of action for seeking
enforcement of the decree. If the argument made by the learned counsel
for the Northern Cult on the question of limitation is accepted, every
defendant in a suit for injunction will wait for three years and then will
start violating the same. Therefore, on this ground also, the submission
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
made by the learned counsel appearing for the Northern Cult on the
question of limitation is negatived. Further, Article 136 of New
Limitation Act, 1963 makes it very clear that enforcement of decree for
injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation. Therefore, the
benefits of Article 136 of Limitation Act, 1963, will certainly enure to all
the decree holders in injunction suit. In any event, in the case on hand,
complaining violation of the decree, in the year 2021, the writ petition
was filed seeking police protection. Every violation of the decree gives a
new cause of action and therefore, the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the Northern Cult on the ground of limitation is
rejected. It was also submitted that the Members of Southern Cult shall
be relegated to execute the decree as per provisions of Civil Procedure
Code. Since the executability of the decree passed by this Court was
questioned on the ground of violation of fundamental rights, the said
issue can be decided only by this Court and hence, this Court is not
inclined to relegate the parties to execute the decree before the Trial
Court.
48. Though the Members of Southern Cult have got remedy of
moving the Civil Court for execution of the decree for injunction, in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
light of the arguments made by the learned counsel appearing for the
Northern Cult that decree was unenforceable due to the violation of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of India, this Court
feels that the writ petition for police protection is very much
maintainable. The points urged by the Members of Northern Cult
regarding the violation of fundamental rights cannot be decided by the
Executing Court. Hence, the Point No.4 is answered against the Northern
Cult and in favour of the Southern Cult.
Discussion on Point No.5:-
49. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the Northern Cult that declaration granted by this Court in the earlier
decision was restricted to 7 families of Southern Cult and their
descendants are not traceable. Therefore, the benefit of the decree cannot
be extended to all the Members of Southern Cult. In Krishnasami
Tatacharyar (1) case, it was clearly mentioned that declaration of
Adhiapaka Miras is the exclusive right of Thengalai and that it
appertains to all the Members of that sect residing at Kancheepuram.
(1.(1882) ILR 5 Mad 313 = MANU/TN/0085/1882)
Likewise, in Tirumalai Eachambadi Thiruvengadachariar (2) case also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
it was clearly held that Adhiapaka Miras right was given to the Thengalai
(Southern Cult) residents of Kancheepuram. The relevant portions were
already extracted in the previous paragraphs. Therefore, we do not want
to extract it again. In view of the categorical pronouncement by this
Court in the earlier judgments that the Mirasi Rights were available to
the Southern Cult residents of Kancheepuram, we hold that the right to
perform certain duties as mentioned above during Ceremonial Worship in
the Temple and Ceremonial Procession is restricted to the Southern Cult
residents of Kancheepuram. Any other non-resident Southern Cult
Member can join the congregation only as a Member and they are not
entitled to any better right as Office Holders. In this connection, at the
risk of repetition, we would like to extract the observation of this Court
in Tirumalai Eachambadi Thiruvengadachariar (2) case, the relevant
observation reads as follows:-
“17. ... ... ... ... That the resident Tengalais have got a
superior right to the Tengalais who do not reside in Conjeevaram
and to all Vadagalais cannot be dented. They have got the mirasi,
i.e., the office to recite the prayers in question and receive the
emoluments of the office. It is not likely that other persons also
would be entitled to perform the duties of the office. ... ... ... …”
(2.1915 MWN (Civil) 281 = MANU/TN/0840/1915)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Therefore, we hold that the right to office or Mirasi right declared in the
earlier judgments is restricted to Southern Cult residents of
Kancheepuram alone. The Point No.5 is accordingly answered.
Discussion on Point No.6:-
50. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the Northern Cult that the Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1971 abolished
hereditary servants in the Temples under the control of the HR and CE
Department and therefore, the Members of the Southern Cult, whose
right to office was declared earlier would automatically loose their right
to hold office, as the rule of next person in line of succession to enter the
office on death of predecessor stood abolished. The validity of Tamil
Nadu Act 2 of 1971 was upheld by the Apex Court in Seshammal and
others vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1972) 2 SCC 11. If the right
to office is declared in favour of individuals and their descendants, on
death of said individuals, their descendant cannot enter the office due to
the abolition of the rule relating to next person in line of succession
entering the office. The deletion of Sub-Section 3 of Section 55 of Tamil
Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, prevents the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
successor of the last office holder entering the office by virtue of
hereditary right. However, even in the Seshammal case, it was clearly
held that the servants, who already entered office by virtue of hereditary
right, were entitled to continue till their life time and succession to the
office by their descendant alone was barred. The submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the Northern Cult can be accepted only in
cases where right to office is given to individuals. Because on the death
of such individual, his son or grandson cannot enter the office by virtue
of hereditary right. In the case on hand, right to office is given to a
collection of individuals namely Members of Southern Cult residing at
Kancheepuram. Therefore, death of office holder will not arise in this
case. Right to office conferred on collection of individuals is a perpetual
one. Even if one of the member dies, there will be other member to
continue the office. The son or grandson of deceased members will also
be treated as resident Members of Southern Cult, provided they reside at
Kancheepuram. They are entitled to perform the duties attached to the
office by virtue of their status as members of Southern Cult of
Kancheepuram, but not by virtue of their hereditary right. Therefore, the
submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Northern Cult,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
based on abolition of Hereditary Right, will not be applicable to cases
where the right to office is conferred on body of persons and not to
individuals. The Point No.6 is answered against the Northern Cult and in
favour of the Southern Cult.
Discussion on Point No.7:-
51. The writ appeals in W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 were filed
by Members of Southern Cult challenging the interim orders passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.M.P.No.12434 of 2022 in W.P.No.12955 of
2022, dated 17.05.2022. The main writ petition was filed challenging the
certain directions issued by Executive Trustee of the Temple so as to
enforce the decree passed by this Court in earlier litigations. The learned
Single Judge after giving a prima facie finding that denial of right to
recite their own Manthram by Members of Northern Cult would amount
to violation of their right to freedom of religion available under Articles
25 and 26 of Constitution of India, issued the following directions:-
“22. In view of the facts and circumstances, this
Court is inclined to pass following interim orders:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
(1) The Thengalai sect shall be permitted to sit in first
two or three rows inside the Temple and behind them, the
Vadagalai sect and ordinary devotees shall be permitted to
sit in the remaining available space inside the Temple. The
seating arrangements shall be regulated by the 3rd
respondent/ Assistant Commissioner / Executive Trustee in
such a manner without affecting discipline and decorum of
the rituals and pooja activities.
(2) The Thengalai sect shall be permitted to
commence their initial recital namely Srisaila Dayapathram
and thereafter, Vadagalai sect shall be permitted to chant
initial recital namely Sri Ramanuja Dayapathram within 10
to 12 seconds each and thereafter, both the Thengalai sect,
Vadagalai sect and ordinary devotees shall be permitted to
jointly chant Naalayira Divya Prabandham in an uniformed
manner without disrupting the rituals and poojas and
without causing any inconvience or nuisance to the other
devotees and worshippers, who all are present in the
Temple.
(3) On completion of chanting of Naalayira Divya
Prabandham by Vadagalai sect, Thengalai sect and
ordinary devotees, jointly the final ritual namely
Vazhithirunamam may be firstly chanted by Thengalai sect
i.e., “Manavalamamunigal Vaazhithirunamam” and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
thereafter, the Vadagalai sect shall be allowed to recite their
concluding Mantra i.e., “Desikan Vazhi Thirunamam” and
accordingly, the entire process of rituals shall be concluded.
(4) The third respondent / the Assistant Commissioner
/ Executive Trustee is directed to Monitor the observance of
rituals both by the Thengalai sect and Vadagalai sect and in
the event of any violations of discipline and decorum,
initiate all appropriate action in the manner known to law
including penal actions.
(5) The third respondent / the Assistant
Commissioner/ Executive Trustee is directed to make the
above arrangements with immediate effect and videograph
the events and produce the same before this Court during
the next hearing, on 25.05.2022.
(6) The third respondent / the Assistant
Commissioner/Executive Trustee is directed to file a
Compliance Report on 25.05.2022.”
52. This Court already has rendered a finding that decree passed in
the earlier litigations no way violate the fundamental rights of Members
of Northern Cult and hence, the judgment and decree passed by this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Court are binding on both the parties. Further, writ petition filed by a
member of Northern Cult challenging the consequential notice issued by
Executive Trustee of Temple cannot be treated as an appeal against Civil
Court's decree which attained finality long back. Therefore, the interim
directions issued by the learned Single Judge, which will have the effect
of modifying the judgment and decree passed by this Court, which
attained finality long back cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ
appeals in W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 are allowed by setting aside
the interim directions issued in W.M.P.No.12434 of 2022 in
W.P.No.12955 of 2022, dated 17.05.2022.
Discussion on Point No.8:-
53. The contempt petition No.367 of 2020 has been filed by the
Members of Southern Cult complaining the wilful disobedience to the
judgment and decree passed by this Court in A.S.No.175 of 1910 and
Appeal No.283 of 1963 by the Executive Trustee of Sri Devarajaswamy
Temple also known as Sri Varadaraja Swamy Temple at Kancheepuram.
It was alleged that the Executive Trustee of the Temple by permitting the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Members of Northern Cult to recite their own Manthram and
Prabandhams committed an act of contempt.
54. Though the Executive Trustee of the Temple has not filed any
counter in the contempt petition, from the averments made in the counter
filed by him in W.P.No.13027 of 2021, it is clear that from the date of
joining office, he had seen that the Southern Cult Adhiapaka Service
Holders would start the recitation by reciting Sri Sailesa Dayapatram and
then Prabandhams. The Members of the Northern Cult would also recite
Parbandham along with Southern Cult Members. Finally, Vazhi
Thirunamam would be recited by Members of the Southern Cult. This
practice appear to be in accordance with decree passed by this Court in
earlier litigations. However, trouble started only after initiation of fresh
litigation from the year 2018 and it was also stated that police complaint
was preferred by him in the year 2020 and an FIR was registered in
Crime No.3870 of 2020. In the light of the said averment and also
pending litigation, this Court is not inclined to accept the averments
made by the petitioner in the contempt petition that there was wilful
disobedience by the Executive Trustee of the Temple to implement the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
earlier decree passed by this Court. Hence, the contempt petition is
disposed of with direction to the 1st Respondent/Executive Trustee of the
Temple to implement the decree passed by this Court in earlier litigations
in its letter and spirit by permitting performance of Ceremonial Worship
and Ceremonial Procession of Deity as per the judgment and decree
passed by this Court in Appeal Suit No.175 of 1910, Appeal No.283 of
1963 and other earlier judgments. In case of difficulty in maintaining the
public order and implementation of the decree, the Executive Trustee is
at liberty to take necessary police help. With this direction, the contempt
petition stands closed.
Discussion on Point No.9:-
55. W.P.No.24729 of 2018 has been filed seeking a direction to
Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of HR and CE Department to
arrange for rendition of Prabandham of Aachariya Vedanta Desika at Sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Devarajaswamy Devasthanam, Kancheepuram during his 750th Birthday
that fell on 21.09.2018. Since 750th birthday of Sri Vedanta Desika was
already over, the prayer sought for by the petitioner technically has
become infructuous. In any event, in earlier decisions, this court had
categorically held that only one Manthram can be recited in a Temple and
as far as Sri Devarajaswamy Devasthanam, Kancheepuram is concerned,
Manthram to be recited during Ceremonial Worship is Sri Sailesa
Dayapatram or Manthram of Southern Cult. In these circumstances, this
Court is not inclined to issue a direction sought for in W.P.No.24729 of
2018 and the same is dismissed.
56. W.P.No.12955 of 2022 has been filed by a Member of Northern
Cult challenging the notice issued by Executive Trustee of the Temple
dated 14.05.2022, whereunder he had issued certain guidelines/directions
to the Members of both the Cults in order to implement the earlier decree
passed by this Court. In the said notice, he directed as per decree passed
in A.S.No.175 of 1910, the Manthra of the Southern Cult shall be recited
and as per the decree passed in S.A.No.515 of 1934, the Members of
Northern Cult shall not occupy the first two rows and at the end of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
Prabandham recitation, only the Manavala Mamunigal Vazhi
Thirunamam shall be recited. He also reiterated that Desika Prabandham
of Northern Cult shall not be recited as per the judgment and decree
passed by this Court. Therefore, the guidelines issued by the Executive
Trustee of the Temple, dated 14.05.2022 are in tune with the judgment
and decree passed in the earlier litigation. The said notice was challenged
by the Members of the Northern Cult on the ground that it violates their
fundamental right to freedom of religion and the said question was
already answered in favour of Southern Cult. In view of the same, the
Writ Petition in W.P.No.12955 of 2022 deserves to be dismissed.
57. Whether judicial order passed by the Courts can be a subject
matter of challenge in writ proceedings came up before the Nine Member
Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and
others vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1967 SC 1.
The Apex Court concluded that judicial order passed by the courts cannot
be the subject matter of challenge in writ proceedings and no writ would
lie against the judicial orders. This point has been dealt with in extenso in
Point No.3 (in Paragraph Nos.41 to 45).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
58. In the case on hand, the judgment and decree passed by this
Court had attained finality long back. The same has not been challenged
by the petitioner or any other Member of the Northern Cult till date.
However, in the present writ petition, a consequential order passed by the
Executive Trustee of the Temple to implement the judicial order has been
questioned. As mentioned earlier, the impugned order only wants to
implement the directions issued by this Court in the earlier decisions.
Therefore, challenging the impugned order on the ground it violates
fundamental rights of the Members of the Northern Cult would amount
to challenging the earlier judicial order passed by this Court, which is the
foundation for the impugned order passed by the Executive Trustee. In
view of the categorical pronouncement made by the Apex Court in the
above mentioned decision, no Writ of Certiorari would lie against the
judicial orders passed by the Courts, on that technical ground, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed. In any event, on merits, we already
came to the conclusion that the fundamental rights of the Members of
Northern Cult are not at all violated by the earlier decisions passed by
this Court. In view of the same, the writ petition in W.P.No.12955 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
2022 stands dismissed.
Discussion on Point No.10:-
59. W.P.No.13027 of 2021 has been filed by a Member of Southern
Cult seeking direction to local Inspector of Police to provide police
protection to the writ petitioner and other Members of the Southern Cult
to ensure service of Prabandham recitation in front of Deity of Sri
Devarajaswamy Temple as per the judgment in A.S.No.175 of 1910 and
Appeal No.283 of 1963. The writ petition was mainly opposed by the
Member of Northern Cult on the ground that the above said judgments
rendered by this Court violates their fundamental right to freedom of
religion. This Court already came to a conclusion that the judgment and
decree passed by this Court upholding Office Holders' Right (Mirasi
Right) of the Members of Southern Cult, who are residents of
Kancheepuram, does not violate the fundamental right to freedom
available to the Members of Northern Cult. Therefore, the Members of
Southern Cult, who are all residents of Kancheepuram are entitled to
exercise the Mirasi Right by reciting their own Manthram, followed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
recitation of Prabandham and conclusion of the same by recitation of
Vazhi Thirunamam of Manavala Mamunigal during Ceremonial Worship
of Deity in the Temple and during Ceremonial Procession. The Members
of the Southern Cult are entitled to occupy the first two rows at the time
of recitation of Manthras and Prabandhams as held in the decree. During
procession, the Members of Southern Cult are entitled to form Goshti and
proceed in front of Deity by reciting Prabandhams. The judgment and
decree passed by this Court in the earlier litigations had already attained
finality and the Members of the Northern Cult are not entitled to reopen
the same.
60. It was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the
Northern Cult that earlier judgments were rendered in a suit between
individuals belonging to Southern Cult and Northern Cult and the said
judgments will not bind all the Members of the Northern Cult. The said
submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Northern Cult
cannot be accepted for the simple reason the Division Bench of this
Court in V.Srinivasachariar (4) case clearly held that earlier litigations
between the parties were in their representative capacity. The relevant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
observation reads as follows:-
“7. In the year 1903, there was a litigation between some
(4. (1970) ILR 2 Mad 146 = MANU/TN/0586/1969)
Vadakalais and Thenkalais in their representative capacities
with regard to certain rituals in the temple of Sri
Devarajaswami. In the year 1906 there was another litigation
between the two sects. The latter one may be examined first.
That was a suit filed by some Thenkalais alleging that the only
form of Athyapakam worship in the Devarajaswami temple and
in all other temples attached thereto, whenever Prabandham
was recited, was by invoking the Thenkalai saint at the
commencement of the ceremonial by reciting Sreesailesa
Dayapathram. They alleged that if any other Vaishnavite
whether Thenkalai or Vadakalai, wanted to recite the
Prabandhams either within the temple or in the course of the
procession, he can join only the Thenkalai Mirasdars by
invoking the Thenkalai saint and that the Vadakalais were not
entitled to form a separate goshti or congregation. The
Defendants, Vadakalais, contended that the Thenkalai
Athyapakam mirasdars were only servants of the temple and
were bound to recite the Naalayira Prabandham in
consideration of the emoluments which they received from the
temple, that the Vadakalais had the right to invoke their saint by
reciting Ramanuja Dayapathram before the Prabandham which
was common to both the sects and that they were entitled to form
separate goshties of their own for reciting Prabandham in their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
own way and for invoking their own saint within the temple or
outside it. The trial Court found that the permanent Thenkalai
residents of Kanchipuram were exclusively entitled to conduct
the Athyapakam service at the time of the pooja and when the
idol was taken in procession within or outside the temple and
that the Vadakalais may, when they chose, join the Thenkalais in
the Athyapakam service and that if they did so they must recite
the same manthram, i.e., the Thenkalai manthram. The trial
Court was also of the view that the Vadakalais may form a
separate goshti and recite their own mantrams and
prabandhams at other times than during the pooja time. As
regards the processions, the trial Court found that Vadakalais
were entitled to form a goshti behind the idol and before the
Athyapakam goshti reciting their own mantrams and
prabandhams taking care that by doing so, they did not disturb
the Thenkalai Prabandham goshti in front of the deity. The trial
Court, however, disallowed the claim of the Thenkalais to
restrain the Defendants, Vadakalais, from reciting on some
occasion their Vadakalai mantrams and prabanthams. Feeling
aggrieved by this decision, the Plaintiffs, Thenkalais, preferred
A.S. No. 175 of 1910, to this Court. The Vadakalais filed
memorandum of cross objections in so far as the decree was
against them. Sankaran Nair and Oldfield JJ., held that the
Thenkalai residents had the superior right of reciting prayers
and that it was only the Thenkalai mantram of Sreesailesa
Dayapathram that could be recited within the temple during any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
ceremonial worship or by any goshti. As for the period of the
pooja, the learned Judges held that the pooja began with the
ringing of the bells and ended with the distribution of Theertham
and Prasadam. The right of the Thenkalais to recite
Prabandhams during the pooja period was recognized and it
was held that during the pooja the Vadakalais cannot repeat any
prabandhams of their own, but were entitled only to join the
Thenkalais as worshippers by reciting the same prabandhams
which the Thenkalais would recite. The further question was
considered whether the Vadakalais were entitled to recite their
Prabandhams either at the time of the processions within the
temple or at other places in the temple where the Thenkalais do
not carry on the worship. It was pointed out that there was
nothing in law to prevent any Vadakalai from worshipping the
deities consistently with the equal rights of other worshippers. It
was, however, held that any interference with the pooja from its
commencement with the ringing of the bells, to its close with the
distribution of Theertham and Prasadam, would be a violation
of the Thenkalai mirasi rights and that inasmuch as processions
are part of the worship, Vadakalais cannot form any goshti of
their own and repeat any Prabandham different from the
Prabandham recited by the mirasiholders. This decision is
reported in Thiruvenkatachariar v. Krishnaswami Thathachariar
1915 M.W.N. 281. The decree of the trial Court was accordingly
modified declaring the exclusive right of the Thenkalais to recite
Sreesailesa Dayapathram within the temple during any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
ceremonial worship or by any goshti. It was further declared
that the Vadakalais were entitled only to join the Thenkalai
Athyapakam goshti or worshippers by reciting the same portion
of the Prabandham that may be recited by the Athyapakam
mirasidars and that the Vadakalais were restrained from reciting
their own mantrams and prabandhams during the pooja period,
which the learned Judges expressly specified as the period from
the commencement of the pooja by the ringing of the bell to the
close of the pooja by the distribution of Theertham and
Prasadam and also during any ceremonial worship.”
61. A close reading of the above finding would indicate that the
right of Members of the Southern Cult, who are residents at
Kancheepuram was declared and Members of Northern Cult have been
injuncted from interfering with the said right. In these circumstances, the
submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Northern Cult
that earlier judgments would not bind all Members of the Northern Cult
cannot be accepted and the same is rejected.
62. The various documents filed in the typed-set of papers and the
averment made in the pleadings of the Executive Trustee of the Temple
would make it clear that there were attempts by Members of Northern
Cult to interfere with the Adhiapaka Service right declared in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
the Members of the Southern Cult. Therefore, the 2nd respondent in writ
petition, the Executive Trustee of the Temple is directed to implement the
decree passed in A.S.No.175 of 1910, dated 15.01.1915 and Appeal
No.283 of 1963, dated 24.03.1969 in its letter and spirit, if necessary by
taking adequate police help. The 1st respondent in the writ petition is
directed to provide necessary police bandobast at the request of the 2nd
respondent/Executive Trustee of the Temple to maintain public order and
implementation of the decree. With these directions, the writ petition in
W.P.No.13027 of 2021 stands disposed of.
63. Various impleading petitions were filed by the Members of
Southern Cult as well as Northern Cult. The Members of Southern Cult
asserted their right under the judgment and decree passed by this Court,
which had already attained finality. The Members of the Northern Cult
questioned correctness of the earlier judgment and decree passed by this
Court mainly on the ground that it violates right to worship recognised
under Constitution of India. These points were extensively considered by
this Court in Point Nos.1, 2 and 3. Therefore, the connected impleading
petitions and other miscellaneous petitions are closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
(VII). Conclusions:-
64. (a) W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 stand allowed and the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.M.P.No.12434 of 2022 in
W.P.No.12955 of 2022, dated 17.05.2022 is set aside.
(b) W.P.Nos.24729 of 2018 and 12955 of 2022 are dismissed.
(c) W.P.No.13027 of 2021 is disposed of with direction to Executive
Trustee of the Temple to implement the earlier decrees as stated
above, if necessary with police help.
(d) Cont.P.No.367 of 2020 stands closed with observations as stated
above.
(c) Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed and
all the connected sub applications are also closed.
(R.S.K., J) (S.S., J)
28.11.2025
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
dm
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu
Tourism, Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
3.The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee
Arulmigu Devarajaswamy Thirukkovil
Sannadhi Street
Kanchipuram – 631 501.
4.The Inspector of Police,
State of Tamil Nadu
B-2 Vishnu Kanchi Police Station
Nethaji Nagar, Kanchipuram – 631 501.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
Pre-delivery Common Judgment made in
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022,
W.P.No.13027 of 2021, W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and
W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022 and W.P.No.13027 of 2021,
W.P.No.12955 of 2022 and W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020
28.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:00:17 pm )
