SESHAMMAL V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(1972) 2 SCC 11
FACTS
The State Legislature of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, (Principal Act). It came into force on December 2, 1959. It was an Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to the administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu. The principal Act of 1959 was amended and came into force on January 8, 1971. Amendments were made to Sections 55, 56 and 116 of the Principal Act. 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.
ISSUE
The issue pertaining to the current case reflects whether the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1970 (the Amendment Act, 1970 violates the Archaka’s freedom of religion secured to them under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
- This hon'ble court observed that the main principles underlying article 25 and article 26 were reiterated in the current case. Here, the Tamil Nde Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1970 was questioned on the ground that whether it violated articles 25 or 26. It made certain hereditary religious offices non-hereditary and prescribed certain requisite educational qualifications for them irrespective of caste, creed or race. It was contended that under the Act, a trustee could appoint a person as archaka if he possessed the requisite qualifications irrespective of his being a Saivite or Vaishnavite which constituted violation of the freedom of religion of the religious denominations as guaranteed by Article 26. The Supreme Court did not accept this contention and upheld the validity of the Act on the ground that under the Act a trustee would be bound to follow the terms of the trust or the usage of the institution in making the appointments, and thus save the purely religious offices from being filled up by persons disqualified by the terms of the trust or by the usage of the institution. Certainly for that reason a person of one sect could not be appointed archaka of another sect.
- Rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship considered by a religion to be its integral and essential part are also secured. What constitutes an integral and essential part of a religion or a religious practice has to be decided by the Courts with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion and includes practices regarded by the community as part of its religion.
CASE LAWS REFERRED
- In Sardar Syedna Taker Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, the court held that “The content of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution came up for consideration before this Court in the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri LakshmIndira Thirta Swamiar of Sri Shirvr Matt and several other 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.”
- In K. Seshadri Aiyangar v. Ranga Bhattar it was held that the position of the hereditary Archaka of a temple is that of a servant subject to the disciplinary power of the trustee. The trustee can enquire into the conduct of such a servant and dismiss him for misconduct. As a servant he is subject to the discipline and control of the trustee as recognised by the unamended Section 56 of the Principal Act which provides “all office-holders and servants attached to a religious institution or in receipt of any emolument or perquisite therefrom shall, whether the office or service is hereditary or not, be controlled by the trustee and the trustee may, after following the prescribed procedure, if any, fine, suspend, remove or dismiss any of them for breach of trust, incapacity, disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, misconduct or other sufficient cause.” This shows that the position of the Archaka is secular. Any lay founder of a temple may appoint the Archaka.