SESHAMMAL & ORS, VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU

FACTS

The case revolved around a land acquisition dispute. The Government of Tamil Nadu had acquired land for a housing project under the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961. The landowners, including Seshammal, challenged the acquisition on various grounds, including inadequate compensation and procedural irregularities.

The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959), often known as the Main Act, was passed by the state legislature of Tamil Nadu. 

On December 2, 1959, it became law. 

The Act was intended to update and harmonize the legal framework governing the management and oversight of Hindu charitable and religious institutions and endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu. 

It repealed various Acts that had previously governed the management of Hindu Public Religious Institutions and applied to all Hindu religious public institutions and endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu. 

The provisions of the primary Act were applicable to the temples in the present petitions, and it is sufficient to state here that the petitioners have no complaint against any of its provisions.

The principal Act of 1959 was amended in certain respects by the Amendment Act of 1970 which came into force on January 8, 1971. Amendments were made to Sections 55, 56 and 116 of the Principal Act and some consequential provisions were made in view of those amendments. The Amendment Act was enacted as a step towards social reform on the recommendation of the Committee on untouchability, Economic and Educational Development of the Scheduled Castes.

In the light of the recommendations of the Committee and in view of the of the decision of this court in Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ((1961) 2 SCR 931.), and also as a further step towards social reform the Government considered that the hereditary principle of appointment of all office-holders in the Hindu temples should be abolished and accordingly it proposed to amend Sections 55, 56 and 116 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959). 8. It is the complaint of the petitioners that by purporting to introduce social reform in the matter of appointment of Archakas and Pujaris, the State has really interfered with the religious practices of Saivite and Vaishnavite temples, and instead of enacting social reform, they have adopted actions that will unavoidably result in the desecration and savaging of the temples.

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS

The Agamas have rules regarding the appointment of Archakas in temples. In Saivite temples, only a devotee of Siva and one belonging to a particular denomination or group is entitled to be the Archaka. A Vaishnavite Archaka has no place as an Archaka in a Saivite temple, and there is no bar to a Saivite worshipping in a Vaishnavite temple as a lay worshipper. The Agamas are more severe in this respect, as they state that only followers of the four Rishi traditions and born of Vaikhanasa parents are competent to do puja in Vaikhanasa temples of Vaishnavites. No other Brahmins, pontiffs, or Acharyas can touch the idol, perform ceremonies, or enter the Garbha Griha. The Archaka occupies an important place in temple worship, and any State action that permits the defilement or pollution of the image by an Archaka not authorized by the Agamas would interfere with the religious faith and practices of Hindu worshippers, making it prima facie invalid under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.

The purpose of worship in a temple is defeated when rituals cannot be performed by anyone belonging to a specific denomination. In Mohan Lalji v. Gordhan Lalji Maharaj, claimants were Brahmins and the founder’s sons, but their claim was rejected due to the temple’s dedication to a sect following Vallabh Archarya’s principles. The Amendment Act allows the government to prescribe standardized rituals in temples, ignoring Agamic requirements, and forcing Archakas to worship in unapproved denominations. This would interfere with religious freedom guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Mr. Palkhivala argued that the appointment of a person to a religious office based on the hereditary principle is a vital religious practice and falls within Articles 2 and 26 of the Constitution. He argued that any law that interferes with the basis of appointment would violate religious freedom guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. He argued that the right to select a priest has an immediate bearing on religious practice and that the State cannot reform a religion out of existence. The question is whether the appointment of a priest or an Archaka is a secular function or a religious practice. He cited the example of a spiritual head of a Hindu sect, the Shankaracharaya, and expressed horror at the idea that such a head could be chosen by a method that conflicts with the usage and traditions of the institution. However, the assumption that the Archaka may be chosen in various ways is incorrect. The appointment of an Archaka is essentially secular, and the appointment by the trustee is subject to the disciplinary power of the trustee. The appointment of an Archaka is a secular act, and the fact that in some temples the hereditary principle was followed in making the appointment would not make successive appointments anything but secular. The appointment of the Archaka performs worship is no ground for holding that the appointment is either a religious practice or a matter of religion.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS

The Advocate General of Tamil Nadu, representing the State, argued that the power given to the trustee under the amended Section 55 was not an unqualified power, as it had to be read in the context of Section 28. The Advocate General argued that the trustee was bound to administer the affairs of the temple in accordance with the terms of the trust and the usage of the institution. He argued that the next-in-line succession principle was not binding on the trustee when making the appointment of a new Archaka, but it was not part of the usage. The amended section does not require the trustee to exclude the hereditary principle if a qualified successor is available, and there was no reason why the trustee should not make the appointment of the next heir if found competent. He agreed that there was no legal obligation on the trustee under that section. He also argued that if the next-in-line of succession principle was regarded as a secular usage of any temple, it would be merely a secular usage on which legislation was competent under Article 25(2)(a) of the Constitution. He called attention to the report of the Hindu Religious Endowments Commission (1960-1962) and emphasized the need for reform in this direction, as the hereditary principle of appointment of Archakas had led to malpractices and destroyed the sanctity of worship in various religious institutions.

JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the land acquisition but directed that the landowners should be awarded higher compensation based on the market value of the land at the time of acquisition. The Court also directed the State of Tamil Nadu to pay interest on the enhanced compensation.

The petition thereby dismissed, and the bench noted that “In the result these Petitions fail but in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.” 

Written by KAUSHAL S S, COLLEGE: 3^rd SEM, School of legal studies, REVA University, Intern @ Legal Vidhiya (Case Analysis)

Admin