Archagar case implead petition copy

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION

(Under Article.226 of the Constitution of India)

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS  (Special original Jurisdiction) W.M.P. No.           of 2021 IN WRIT PETITION No. 15534 of 2021

 

V.Aranganathan,

S/o G.Vasudevan,

President,

Archakar Payirchi petra Manavargal Sangam

No.128, Arasamaram Street,

Gokulam Illam, Thiruvannamalai,

Thiruvannamalai District                                                                                 … Petitioner/Proposed Respondent

 

Versus

 

  1. Shridharan,

B1 Srinivasam Apartment

New No. #0, II Main Road

CIT Nagar East

Chennai – 600 035                                                                                                                                       … 1st Respondent/ Petitioner

 

  1. Secretary to Government,

Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department,

Government of Tamilnadu

Chennai-600 009

  1. The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments,

119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai-600 034                                         … Respondents 2 & 3/Respondents 1 & 2

 

 

AFFIDAVIT OF V.ARANGANATHAN

I, V. Aranganathan S/o G. Vasudevan, Hindu, aged about 33 years residing at No. No.128, Arasamaram Street, Gokulam Illam, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows;

 

  1. I state that I am the Petitioner in the above miscellaneous petition and as such I am well acquainted with the contents of this affidavit. I state that I am filing the above Impleading petition to permit me to implead as a respondent in the main Writ Petition No.15534/2021.

 

  1. I submit that the main Writ petition is filed to directing the respondents to appoint archakas only from the particular denominations/group/sect as mandated by the Agamas governing respective temples, and not to offer archanai in Tamil language in temples in violation of Agamas.

 

  1. I state that I am the president of “Archakar Payirchi Petra Manavargal Sangam” which is a registered as No.412 of 2009 dated 13.10.2009 under the T.N. Registration of Societies Act. Further, Our Sangam consists of members of Archakar Training Students who have successfully completed the trainings and passed the examination conducted by the 3rd

 

  1. I submit that all the Hindus who are appropriately trained and qualified could be appointed as Archakas in the Hindu temples. In pursuant to that the government passed the G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 23.05.2006 to give training to the selected Archaka students had started six Archakar Training Schools at six famous temples at Tamil Nadu and the following are (1) Sri Parthasarathi Temple, Chennai, (2) Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple, Thiruvannamalai, (3) Sri

Palani Andavar Murugan Temple, Palani (4) Sri Ranganathar Temple, Srirangam, Trichirapalli (5) Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Madurai, (6) Sri Subramania Swami Temple, Tiruchendur to provide appropriate training of the Archakas to perform, pujas and recite Vedic mantras etc. The selected Archakas students have to obtain the fitness certificate for his Office from the head of institutions which impart instructions in Agamas and

ritualistic matters.

 

  1. I submit that the Archakar Training Schools were formed by the Government of Tamil Nadu to train candidates irrespective of caste for the post of Archakar. Archakar of the temples is a secular post have to be appointed without any discrimination of caste and creed, and selected candidates has to be properly trained and qualified in order to achieve this objective the 3rd respondent had formed Archakar Training Schools. In order to select the candidates the 3rd respondent had published an advertisement in the newspapers in English and vernacular language inviting applications under two category i.e., Saivite Archaka in saivaite temples and Vaishnavite Archaka in vaishnavite Temples on their choice. Based on the newspaper advertisement, I had submitted the application under Saivite category on 21.03.2007 and thereafter interviews were conducted among the candidates who applied for the admission in the Archakar Training School. Likewise, the members of our association were also applied for Archakar Training School.

 

  1. I submit that I was selected in the interview and a selection order was issued to me on 09.05.2007 by the 3rd respondent to undergo training in ‘Sri

Arunachaleswarar Temple’ at Thiruvannamalai which is one of the saivite Archakar Training School formed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. On 11.05.2007 Archakas Training Course were commenced and we have been given specialize training in “Agamas, Karana Agamam, Kamiga Agamam,

Sivapuranam, 108 Saiva hymns, 12 Thirumuraigals” such as Thirumandiran, Pathinoram Thirumurai, Periyapuranam and other manthras and

instructions in Agamas and ritualistic matters. Training also been given to perform pujas and recite mantras, Vedas, prabandams and other invocations.

 

  1. I submit that after undergoing training in Agamas and Manthras the examination was conducted during the month of May, 2008 and the course completed on 18.06.2008. The Certificates were issued to the Archakar Students who have successfully completed their examinations and further a refresher course also has been conducted in the Archakar Training School between 07.07.2008 to 20.07.2008 and a Certificate was awarded to the

Archakar Students.

 

  1. I submit that after having successfully completed the Archakar Training Course, the 3rd respondent has not provided the employment of Archakar that was assured by them at the time of selection and training. Aggrieved by the same we have approached the 3rd respondent and requested them to provide the Archakar job in any temple. Whileso to the shock and surprise they have replied that in view of the stay order granted by Hon’ble Apex Court in W.P No.354/2006 order dated 14.08.2006 they could not appoint us as

Archakar in any public temple.

 

  1. I submit that in view of the stay order of this Hon’ble court we could not find Archakar Employment even after we have successfully completed the course as stipulated by the government and inspite of several representations to the government and all our efforts have end in vain and we are not able to get the archakar appointment in view of the said stay order which is in force. Hence

I have filed the Impleading petition on behalf of our association in Adi Saiva Sivacharriyargal Nala Sangam versus State of Tamil Nadu and Another before the Apex Court and the final Order was passed on 16.12.2015 and it is reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 209.

 

  1. I submit that the Apex Court went deep into the matter and neither quashed the said G.O nor blanket approval of said G.O and it emphasis that validity of the impugned G.O.118 of 2006 would depend up on the facts of each case of appointment and any norms prescribed by Agama should not be violated. The Hon’ble Court held as follows:

“41. Sheshammal (supra) is not an authority for any proposition as to what an Agama or a set of Agamas governing a particular or group of temples lay down with regard to the question that confronts the court, namely, whether any particular denomination of worshippers or believers have an exclusive right to be appointed as Archakas to perform the poojas. Much less, has the judgment taken note of the particular class or caste to which the Archakas of a temple must belong as prescribed by the Agamas. All that it does and says is that some of the Agamas do incorporate a fundamental religious belief of the necessity of performance of the Poojas by Archakas belonging to a particular and distinct sect / group / denomination, failing which, there will be defilement of deity requiring purification ceremonies. Surely, if the Agamas in question do not proscribe any group of citizens from being appointed as Archakas on the basis of caste or class the sanctity of Article 17 or any other provision of Part III of the Constitution or even the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 will not be violated. What has been said in Sheshammal (supra) is that if any prescription with regard to appointment of Archakas is made by the Agamas, Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Act mandates the Trustee to conduct the temple affairs in accordance with such custom or usage. The requirement of Constitutional conformity is inbuilt and if a custom or usage is outside the protective umbrella afforded and envisaged by Articles 25 and 26, the law would certainly take its own course. The constitutional legitimacy, naturally, must supersede all religious beliefs or practices.

 

  1. The difficulty lies not in understanding or restating the constitutional values. There is not an iota of doubt on what they are. But to determine whether a claim of state action in furtherance thereof overrides the constitutional guarantees under Article 25 and 26 may often involve what has already been referred to as a delicate and unenviable task of identifying essential religious beliefs and practices, sans which the religion itself does not survive. It is in the performance of this task that the absence of any exclusive ecclesiastical jurisdiction of this Court, if not other shortcomings and adequacies, that can be felt. Moreover, there is some amount of uncertainty with regard to the prescription contained in the Agamas. Coupled with the above is the lack of easy availability of established works and the declining numbers of acknowledged and undisputed scholars on the subject. In such a situation one is reminded of the observations, if not the caution note struck by Mukherjea, J. in Shirur Mutt (supra) with regard to complete autonomy of a denomination to decide as to what constitutes an essential religious practice, a view that has also been subsequently echoed by this Court though as a

“minority view”. But we must hasten to clarify that no such view of the Court can be understood to an indication of any bar to judicial determination of the issue as and when it arises. Any contrary opinion would go rise to large scale conflicts of claims and usages as to what is an essential religious practice with no acceptable or adequate forum for resolution. That apart the “complete autonomy” contemplated in Shirur Mutt (supra) and the meaning of “outside authority” must not be torn out of the context in which the views, already extracted, came to be recorded (page 1028). The exclusion of all “outside authorities” from deciding what is an essential religion practice must be viewed in the context of the limited role of the State in matters relating to religious freedom as envisaged by Articles 25 and 26 itself and not of the Courts as the arbiter of Constitutional rights and principles.

 

  1. What then is the eventual result? The answer defies a straight forward resolution and it is the considered view of the court that the validity or otherwise of the impugned G.O. would depend on the facts of each case of appointment. What is found and held to be prescribed by one particular or a set of Agamas for a solitary or a group of temples, as may be, would be determinative of the issue. In this regard it will be necessary to re-emphasise what has been already stated with regard to the purport and effect of Article 16(5) of the Constitution, namely, that the exclusion of some and inclusion of a particular segment or denomination for appointment as Archakas would not violate Article 14 so long such inclusion/exclusion is not based on the criteria of caste, birth or any other constitutionally unacceptable parameter. So long as the prescription(s) under a particular Agama or Agamas is not contrary to any constitutional mandate as discussed above, the impugned G.O. dated 23.05.2006 by its blanket fiat to the effect that, “Any person who is a Hindu and possessing the requisite qualification and training can be appointed as a Archaka in Hindu temples” has the potential of falling foul of the dictum laid down in Seshammal (supra). A determination of the contours of a claimed custom or usage would be imperative and it is in that light that the validity of the impugned G.O. dated 23.05.2006 will have to be decided in each case of appointment of Archakas whenever and wherever the issue is raised. The necessity of seeking specific judicial verdicts in the future is inevitable and unavoidable; the contours of the present case and the issues arising being what has been discussed.

 

  1. Consequently and in the light of the aforesaid discussion, we dispose of all the writ petitions in terms of our findings, observations and directions above reiterating that as held in Seshammal (supra) appointments of Archakas will have to be made in accordance with the Agamas, subject to their due identification as well as their conformity with the Constitutional mandates and principles as discussed above.”

 

  1. I submit that I am a proper and necessary party in this Writ Petition and further directly aggrieved by the any order passed by this Hon’ble Court on this Writ Petition. I may be permitted to implead as a respondent in the Writ Petition to place certain material facts and particulars before this Hon’ble Court for a proper determination and adjudication of the legal issues and factual issues involved in this Writ Petition.

 

  1. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners have repeatedly claimed that agamas provide well laid out rules and procedures for the construction and maintainance of the shaivaite and vaishnavaite temples, and the names of the specific denominations from which the appointment of archakas should be done are also explicitly mentioned therein. The petitioner has further made statements in respect of temples which are governed by Agamas and temples which are not governed by Agamas which are disputed facts. The petitioner has neither established this claim before the appropriate authorities or the civil court nor evidence has been produced to substantiate their contention as such the same has to be rejected for want of proof and materials and the same cannot be decided under Writ jurisdiction before this Hon’ble Court and hence the writ petition may be dismissed as not maintainable in law.

 

  1. It is respectfully submitted that the writ petitioners by arguing that “the prime and important qualification to become an Archakar is that they should have been born to a Sivacharya or Bhattacharya of a particular denomination, sect or group who are eligible to become archakas” cannot seek refuge under Art 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India as the Office of Archakar falls under the scope of Art 16 which squarely prohibits discrimination on the grounds of caste, descent, and race among other things in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under all public temples while providing equality of opportunity to the same.

 

  1. It is respectfully submitted that the contention of the writ petitioners that appointment of qualified person who does not hail from their so called denomination amounts to non compliance of Sec 28 of T.N.H.R&C.E Act and is violative of Art 25 and 26 of constitution is not incorrect view.

 

  1. It is respectfully submitted that even as per the Judgment delivered in SESHAMMAL vs STATE OF TAMILNADU reported in 1972 (2) SCC 11 the

interpretation of Sec 28 of T.N.H.R&C.E Act would be usage refers only to the poojas, rituals and ceremonies and does not speak about appointment of archakar from a particular denomination. Article 25 (2) (a) permits the State to make any law regulating or restricting the secular activities which may be associated with religious practice. This Hon’ble Court has already held that the Office of Archaka is a secular post.

 

  1. It is respectfully submitted that if any agama or usage prohibits a person who does not hail from Sivacharya or Bhattacharya family from being appointed as Archakar, the same is unreasonable and discriminatory and is ought not to be recognized as it is in conflict with the sprit of the Constitution of India even if fully established by evidence. Such Agamas cannot have validity more than what a ‘fatwa’ has.

 

  1. It is respectfully submitted that when the Madras Temple Entry Act was challenged before this Hon’ble court it was contended that as per Agama only a particular caste can enter into the temple and certain lower castes are excluded and prevented from entry. Rejecting the contention Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court had held that all the citizens are equal no person can be discriminated on the ground of caste or prohibition, injunction contained in agama and this Hon’ble court held that the Hindu temples are open to all and further held that not Temple Entry Act is applicable not only to public temples but also to private and denomination temples. The right to religion guaranteed under Art 25 and 26 of Constitution of India are not absolute and the same is subject to reasonable restrictions as the State can impose and the both the Articles 25 and 26 are subject to other rights guaranteed under Part III Constitution of India.

 

  1. It is respectfully submitted that the authenticity and validity Agamas has to be tested in the light of the provisions of Art 14,15,16,17 of Constitution of India and further the Agama which earlier prohibited the all persons to enter into the temples was declared by this Hon’ble Court as unconstitutional and a practice of untouchability and contrary to law and the same yardstick has to be applied and declare the agama which prohibits the archakar appointment in accordance with Art 16 (2) as unconstitutional and opposed to equality of law. Hence the writ petition seeking

 

  1. It is respectfully submitted that there cannot be a total ban on the appointment of archakas merely on the contention of agamas since all the

Hindu temples cannot falls under the purview of “Temple governed by Agamas” and further  a statistics on the temples has  to be ascertained to come to the conclusion that temples which are governed by agamas ? Which are not? And the other category temples the appointment of archakar can be proceeded to safeguard the object of worship.

 

  1. It is respectfully submitted that prohibiting majority of the Hindus from being appointed to the office of archakar in conflict with Art 15 (1) and Art 16 (2) of the Constitution of India on the grounds of caste and descent among other things, is dubious and illegitimate. These are various questions to be answered by the writ petitioners before this Hon’ble Court to make out a prima facie case.

 

  1. It is submitted that 27 Archakas is appointed from our association ‘Archakar Payirchi Petra Manavargal Sangam’ and they were all well trained and got ‘deeksha’ from religious saints and any order by this Hon’ble Court without hearing us, our member’s right will be prejudiced.

 

  1. It is submitted that petitioner herein is party to the case in Adi Saiva Sivacharriyargal Nala Sangam versus State of Tamil Nadu and Another before the Apex Court which is reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 209.

 

  1. It is therefore I am the just and necessary party to the case and I may be permitted to implead and make submissions before this Hon’ble Court.

 

For the aforesaid reason, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to implead the petitioner/ Proposed Respondent in the main Writ Petition in W.P. 15534/2021 and pass such further or other order this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

 

Solemnly affirmed at chennai on this the

31st day of AUGUST 2021

                         BEFORE ME

 

 

 

 

ADVOCATE ::CHENNAI

 

and signed his name in my presence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION

(Under Article.226 of the Constitution of India)

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS  (Special original Jurisdiction) W.M.P. No.           of 2021 IN WRIT PETITION No. 16287 of 2021

 

V.Aranganathan,

S/o G.Vasudevan,

President,

Archakar Payirchi petra Manavargal Sangam

No.128, Arasamaram Street,

Gokulam Illam, Thiruvannamalai,

Thiruvannamalai District                                                                                 … Petitioner/Proposed Respondent

 

Versus

 

  1. Shridharan,

B1 Srinivasam Apartment

New No. #0, II Main Road

CIT Nagar East

Chennai – 600 035                                                                                                                                       … 1st Respondent/ Petitioner

 

  1. Secretary to Government,

Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department,

Government of Tamilnadu

Chennai-600 009

  1. The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments,

119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai-600 034                                         … Respondents 2 & 3/Respondents 1 & 2

 

 

 

 

PETITION FOR IMPLEADING

 

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to implead the petitioner/ Proposed Respondent in the main Writ Petition in W.P. 15534/2021 and pass such further or other order this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

 

DATED AT CHENNAI ON THIS 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2021

 

 

 

 

 

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

 

You may also like...