21 May 2025, 11:15 AM
The Supreme Court has recently directed the Tamil Nadu government to fill up the vacancies of priests in 'Non-Agama' Temples within a period of 3 months.
The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal on May 14 directed the committee appointed by the Madras High Court to identify he number of Agama Temples as against the number of non-Agama Temples in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The entire exercise of identification is to be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of its order. After which the State Government is required to fill up vacancies in non Agama Temples, while keeping due regard to the customs of the temple.
The relevant part of the order states :
"We are inclined to record the statement made on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu that the Committee appointed by the High Court, is comprised of a person named Satyavel Murugan. The aforesaid person would be replaced, with a non-controversial person, to identify the number of Agama Temples as against the number of non-Agama Temples in the State of Tamil Nadu."
"The entire identification exercise is expected to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, liberty is given to the respondent-State of Tamil Nadu to fill up the vacancies in the non Agama Temples, subject to strict compliance of the requisite customs, usage and practices and in light of the orders passed by this Court."
The Court directed that the Committee, which is led by former High Court Judge, Justice M Chockalingam would have to replace one of its members- MP Sathyavel Murugan against whom certain objections were raised.
Notably, Agama Temples in Tamil Nadu are those temples which operate strictly according to 'Agama Shastras'- the ancient scriptures on idol installation, rituals, temple architecture and appointment of priests etc. These temples follow sectarian traditions like Shaiva, Vaishnava, or Shakta.
Non-Agamic Temples are those which do not follow the Agama Shastras and have evolved with local customs and community traditions.
The bench further directed that the Commissioner of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Department would be at liberty to fill vacancies for Archakas (priests) and Maniyams (administrative officials) of Shri Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Temple. The same is to be done, keeping in mind the temple traditions and previous court orders.
"Insofar as Shri Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Temple is concerned, without prejudice to the contentions of the parties, the Commissioner of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Department is at liberty to fill up the existing vacancies for both Archakas and Maniyams, by strictly following the due procedure in the light of the requisite customs, usage and practices of the aforesaid temple and in light of the orders passed by this Court."
In August 2022, a division bench of the Madras High Court had read down the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020 to hold that they would not apply to temples constructed as per agamas in relation to the qualifications and appointments of archakas/poojaris.
According to the High Court ruling, since Agamic Temples have their own customs and usages, only persons from those denominations who have traditionally performed pujas, may be appointed as archakas.
The Apex Court in September 2023, however stayed the appointment of archakas in Agama Temples.
The matter will now be heard on September 18.
Counsel for Appellants: Mr. P. Valliappan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, AOR Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv. Ms. Arzu Paul, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi, Adv. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv.
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. S Raman Ag, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Shunmugasundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. E. R Elango, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari Aag, Sr. Adv. Mr. M Sathyanarayanan, Sr. Adv. and other advocates
Case Details : SRIRANGAM KOIL MIRAS KAINKARYAPARAGAL MATRUM ATHANAI SARNTHA KOILGALIN MIRASKAINKARYAPARARGALIN NALASANGAM VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.| Civil Appeal No(s). 7692/2023