extractor of all colors

On August 14, 2021, the Government of Tamil Nadu has released 24 trained . appointed to archaso (priests) in temples across the state that come under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR&CE). Same day, post for odhuvari, Pusri, mahouts, garland stringers and an umbrella carrier were also full. In the weeks that followed, a series of writ petitions have been filed against these appointments before the Madras High Court.

kingdom and temple

The Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959, is the law governing the administration of Hindu temples and religious institutions. In 1971, section 55 of the HR and CE Act was amended to end hereditary priesthood. In 2006, the amendment provided for the appointment of adequately trained Hindus irrespective of their caste. archaso For Hindu temples by Govt. Challenges to both amendments were taken to the Supreme Court, which upheld the law as amended.

Nevertheless, the demand for reducing the scope and authority of the HR and CE Act has not waned. In recent years, there has been a campaign to “free the temples from the clutches of the government”. Building on this, the BJP’s manifesto for the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections in 2021 also included a proposal to hand over the administration of Hindu temples to “a separate board consisting of Hindu scholars and saints”.

Constitutional Courts have ample opportunities to consider various challenges of HR and CE Act. In Seshammal vs Sangh (1972), the Supreme Court observed that the amendment to the HR&CE Act abolishing hereditary priesthood did not mean that the government intended to bring about “changes in rituals and ceremonies”. Similarly, in Adi Shaiva Shivacharyargal Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2015), it observed that “constitutional legitimacy should, naturally, take the place of all religious beliefs or practices”. The Court further said that the appointments should be tested on a case-by-case basis and any appointment that does not conform to it. Agamaso It would be against the constitutional freedoms enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has held that using arguments Agamaso Commonly used in petitions filed against any alleged government interference in the affairs of the temple administration. It has been consistently held that any dispute of violation of Agamaso Testing should be done on a case-by-case basis. That is to say, no relief can be granted on the ground that an executive decision or order has violated Agamaso or essential religious practices.

development of jurisprudence

Nevertheless, the development of rights-based jurisprudence in the past three years is of relevance. In Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (Sabarimala case) and Joseph Shine vs Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court reiterated the need to eliminate “historic discrimination that pervaded certain identities”, “systemic discrimination against disadvantaged groups” and the stereotypical notions used to justify such discrimination. rejected.

In all these cases, the Court preferred a judicial balance of various constitutional rights. In the Sabarimala case, it held that “in the constitutional order of priorities, the individual right to freedom of religion was not intended to dominate, but was subject to the overriding constitutional positions of equality, liberty and individual liberty recognized in other provisions of the Part. of III”. It further clarifies that “although our Constitution protects religious freedom and the consequential rights and practices essential to religion, this Court shall be guided by the endeavor to uphold the values ​​of the Constitution based on dignity, liberty and equality.”

Constitutional courts will now be asked to build on the benefits of the Sabarimala case when it comes to the administration of temples, so far as it pertains to matters which are not necessarily religious. In doing so, they will be guided by the principles of constitutional morality and genuine equality. Supreme Court, in Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union Of India (2018) described Article 15 as broad, progressive and conflicting. The Court explained the mutual nature of gender discrimination. Today, while much of the debate is about whether men of all caste groups can become archasoWe have failed to recognize the gender bias inherent in these discussions. Therefore, the present case before the Madras High Court gives us an opportunity to ask why women and trans persons should not be appointed archaso. The caste stereotypes and patriarchy contained within the purview of the HR&CE Act can be abolished at once and replaced by the vision of a just, equal and dignified society.

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram is the spokesperson and advocate of DMK, Madras High Court. This article was written with research input from Haripriya Venkatakrishnan