+

SC upholds order on priests’ appointment in TN temples

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to vacate its September 25 order, which directed the Tamil Nadu government to maintain the existing conditions regarding the appointment of priests (‘archakas’) in temples following the ‘Agamic’ tradition in the state. A bench comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh prima facie did not agree to submissions of […]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to vacate its September 25 order, which directed the Tamil Nadu government to maintain the existing conditions regarding the appointment of priests (‘archakas’) in temples following the ‘Agamic’ tradition in the state.
A bench comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh prima facie did not agree to submissions of senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, that the state was entitled to appoint “archakas”.
Dave argued that the appointment of ‘archakas’ is a secular function, and therefore, the state has the authority to make these appointments. The bench pointed out that the issue revolves around the state government not adhering to the procedures prescribed under the ‘agama’ tradition when appointing ‘archakas’ in temples of a specific denomination. The ‘agamas’ consist of tantric literature within Hindu schools, with three branches: ‘Shaiva, Vaishnava, and Shakta.’ The top court was hearing petitions which alleged that the state government was interfering with the hereditary appointment system of ‘archakas’ in ‘Agama temples’ by permitting individuals from other denominations to become ‘archakas’ after completing a one-year certificate course in ‘archakas’ offered by schools under the Tamil Nadu administration. On September 25, the bench ordered a status quo, which, according to the state government, would halt the appointment of 2,405 ‘archakas’ in temples across the state. The SC has set the petitions for further hearing on January 25, 2024, and clarified that it will not stay the ongoing proceedings before the Madras High Court on a similar issue. The bench asked the lawyer to inform the high court that the Supreme Court is seized of the matter.

Tags: