SESHAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-1972-3-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
March 14,1972
SESHAMMAL
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JAGANNATH RAMANUJ DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]VENKATARAMANA DEVARU STATE OF MYSORE VS. STATE OF MYSORE:VENKATARAMANA DEVARU [REFERRED TO]
DURGAH COMMITTEE AJMER ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA VS. SYED HUSSAIN ALI:SYED HUSSAIN ALI [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR SYEDNA TAHER SAIFUDDIN SAHEB VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [RELIED ON]
Cited Judgements :-
ATHIEST SOCIETY OF INDIA NALGONDA DISTRICT BRANCH VS. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1992-8-6] [REFERRED TO]TRIVIKRAM NARAIN SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-1986-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
M D NARAYAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1997-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
V S SIVAKUMAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-109] [REFERRED TO]
THILLAIAMMAN DEVASTHANAM VS. P THILLAINAYAGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-197] [REFERRED TO]
KARTHICK.K VS. S.PARAMESWARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2023-2-203] [REFERRED TO]
T. R. RAMESH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2023-1-185] [REFERRED TO]
MURALEEDHARAN T. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-162] [REFERRED TO]
RANA MUNESHWAR KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1975-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMI HARBANSA CHARI JI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1980-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
T M A PAI FOUNDATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2002-10-89] [REFERRED TO 339]
PERIYAPATTAM S SADASIVA GURUKKAL (DIED) AND S RAVIKUMAR GURUKKAL VS. COMMISSIONER, H R AND C E AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2010-9-542] [REFERRED]
PERIYAPATTAM S SADASIVA GURUKKAL (DIED) AND S RAVIKUMAR GURUKKAL VS. COMMISSIONER, H R AND C E AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2010-9-542] [REFERRED]
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SRI NACHIAR DEVASTHANAM SRIVILLIPUTHUR VS. PATTU AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2011-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED GANI VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2005-7-203] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GANI SOFT VS. HAJ COMMITTEE [LAWS(J&K)-2008-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION GOVERNMENT LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL VS. CHALIL KUNHIMMU HAJI [LAWS(KER)-1997-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHU SUBRAMANIA GURUKKAL VS. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE [LAWS(MAD)-2023-6-153] [REFERRED TO]
ARULMIGHU SUYAMBULINGASWAMY THIRUKOIL, VUVARI, REP. , BY ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, P. K. S. T. RADHAKRISHNAN, KEEZH VUVARI, RATHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. VS. ANNAMALAI [LAWS(MAD)-2023-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
ARULMIGHU SUYAMBULINGASWAMY THIRUKOIL, VUVARI, REP. , BY ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, P. K. S. T. RADHAKRISHNAN, KEEZH VUVARI, RATHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. VS. ANNAMALAI [LAWS(MAD)-2023-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE SAMSTHANA MAHABALESHWARA DEVA GOKARNA VS. U. F. M ANANTHRAJ [LAWS(KAR)-2020-8-447] [REFERRED TO]
BAPU LAL MANSUKH LAL THAKKAR MANSUKH LAL THAKKAR CENTRAL VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2005-7-231] [REFERRED TO]
COMMR OF POLICE VS. ACHARYA JAGDISHWARANANDA ABADHUTA [LAWS(CAL)-1990-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA KANTILAL THAKAR VS. VISHNUPRASAD K THAKAR [LAWS(GJH)-2008-9-156] [REFERRED TO]
YELLANTI RENUKA VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2022-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
SHAYARA BANO VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA MANGILAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1987-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
INDER KUMAR PANCHAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1999-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(SC)-2014-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
FORCE 1 GUARDING SERVICES PVT LTD REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CAPT SHIBU ISSAC VS. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT & OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-173] [REFERRED TO]
KHATJI VS. AB RAZAK SUFI [LAWS(J&K)-1976-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
P.M. CHELLAPANDI POOSARI VS. COMMITTEE OF ADMINISTRATORS [LAWS(MAD)-2024-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
D Ganesa Gurukkal VS. Dharbaranyeswaraswamy Devasthanam Thirunallar [LAWS(MAD)-2004-12-120] [REFERRED TO]
C A JAGANNATHAN VS. T E SRINIVASAN [LAWS(MAD)-2001-8-148] [REFERRED TO]
VAI BALASUNDARAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1986-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
MEYYAPPA VELAR VS. TAMIL NADU TEMPLE ADMINISTRATION BOARD MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1994-12-59] [REFERRED TO]
POGAKULA LAXMIREDDY VS. PRINICIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-1996-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEB KUMAR BANERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1983-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
RIJU PRASAD SARMA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2011-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH AMRITLAL SHAH VS. KANTILAL CHUNILAL SHAH [LAWS(BOM)-2000-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH TEMPLE PURI MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE VS. CHINTAMANIKHUNTIA:CHINTAMANIKHUNTIA [LAWS(SC)-1997-9-49] [RELIED ON]
S K NATARAJA GURUKKAL VS. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-675] [REFERRED TO]
SONA KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. COMMISSIONER HR&CE DEPARTMENT & [LAWS(MAD)-2009-6-375] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHUKARUPPAN AND ORS. VS. THIRUGNANASAMBANDAM AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-382] [REFERRED TO]
T.R.RAMESH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2021-8-171] [REFERRED TO]
U.N. BHARDWAJ VS. Y.N. BHARDWAJ [LAWS(DLH)-2010-10-156] [REFERRED TO]
T.M.D. RAFI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2019-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
GOOLROKH M.GUPTA VS. BURJOR PARDIWALA [LAWS(GJH)-2012-3-542] [REFERRED TO]
LEADING AIRCRAFTSMAN ANSARI AAFTAB AHMED; MOHAMMED ZUBAIR CORPORAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2008-7-166] [REFERRED]
ANJUM KADARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2024-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
MOST REV P M A METROPOLITAN VS. MORAN MAR MARTHOMA [LAWS(SC)-1995-6-1] [RELIED ON]
MOST REV P M A METROPOLITAN VS. MORAN MAR MARTHOMA [LAWS(SC)-1995-6-1] [RELIED ON]
CHELLAPPA IYER VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2022-6-183] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA ADI SAIVA SIVACHARYARGAL SEVA SANGAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2022-8-153] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VS. ACHARYA JAGADISHWARANANDA AVADHUTA [LAWS(SC)-2004-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VS. ACHARYA JAGADISHWARANANDA AVADHUTA [LAWS(SC)-2004-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
CHOCKALINGAM VS. NAMBI PANDIYAN [LAWS(MAD)-2010-11-211] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH CENTRAL INDIA UNION OF SDA, BANGALORE VS. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2016-6-352] [REFERRED TO]
YELLANTI RENUKA VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2022-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
DAYAMAYA DEBI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1974-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA PANDE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1976-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
THIRU SABANATHA OLI SIVACHARIYAR VS. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2022-6-197] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE CAPTIVE ELEPHANTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2024-11-141] [REFERRED TO]
RAMACHANDRA VS. SHIVARAM NARAYANA BHAT [LAWS(KAR)-2008-7-65] [REFERRED TO]
R. GOVINDARAJ CHEZHIAN VS. THIRU M. KARUNANIDHI [LAWS(MAD)-1997-9-112] [REFERRED TO]
PAKSHI SIVARAJAN S. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE AND ORS. VS. RASU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
THIRU SABANATHA OLI SIVACHARIYAR VS. COMMISSIONER H R AND C E DEPARTMENT UTTAMAR GANDHI SALAI CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2010-3-626] [FOLLOWED ON]
G. THIRUMURUGAN VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2020-1-342] [REFERRED TO]
YELLANTI RENUKA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-3-58] [REFERRED TO]
A S NARAYANA DEEKSHITULU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1996-3-124] [RELIED ON]
ADI SAIVA SIVACHARIYARGAL NALA SANGAM & ORS VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ANR [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-40] [REFERRED TO]
THE SEWA COMMITTEE, BARIDARAN AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-1994-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
K NEELAMEGA BHATTACHARIYAR VS. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2012-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
R LAKSHMI NARASIMHA BATTAR SWAMI VS. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2010-10-426] [REFERRED]
N KUMARASWAMY GURAKKAL VS. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS NURIGAMBAKKAM MADRAS 34 [LAWS(MAD)-2000-6-57] [REFERRED TO]
VOL : 2; SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS AND ORS VS. GOPAL SINGH VISHARAD AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-628] [REFERRED]
N ADITHAYAN VS. TRAVENCORE DEVASWOM BOARD [LAWS(SC)-2002-10-87] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNUNARAYANAN VS. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & DEVASWOM [LAWS(KER)-2024-2-157] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-9-127] [REFERRED TO]
JAGARLAMUDI VENKATA SUBBARAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2019-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
DR. NOORJEHAN SAFIA NIAZ VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-98] [REFERRED TO]
JATINDRA MOHAN DAS GUPTA VS. SREE SREE KAIBALYANATH SATYANARAYAN [LAWS(CAL)-1974-10-26] [REFERRED TO]
DSGMC AND ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
PALEKAR -
(1.)IN these 12 petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution filed by the hereditary Archakas and Mathadhipatis of some ancient Hindu Public temples in Tamil Nadu the validity of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act, 1970) is called in question, principally, on the ground that it violates their freedom of religion secured to them under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The validity of the Amendment Act had been also impugned on the ground that it interfered with certain other fundamental rights of the petitioners but that case was not pressed at the time of the hearing.
(2.)THE temples with which we are concerned are Saivite and Vaishnative temples in Tamil Nadu. Writ Petitions 70, 83, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443 and 444/71 are filed by the Archakas and Writ Petitions 13 and 14/1971 are filed by the Mathadhipatis to whose Math some temples are attached. As common questions were involved in all these petitions, arguments were addressed principally in Writ Petitions 13/1971 and 442/1971, and we are assured by counsel for both sides that they cover the points involved in all the other petitions.
The State Legislature of Tamil Nadu enacted The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 being (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959) hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act. It came into force on 2/12/1959. 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. It applied to all Hindu religious public institutions and endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu and repealed several acts which had previously governed the administration of Hindu Public Religious Institutions. It is sufficient to say here that the provisions of the Principal Act applied to the temples in the present petitions and the petitioners have no complaint against any of its provisions.
Section 55 of that Act provided for the appointment of officeholders and servants in such temples and Section 56 provided for the punishment of office-holders and servants. Section 55, broadly speaking, gave the trustee of the temple the power to appoint the office-holders or servants of the temple and also provided that where the office or service is hereditary the person next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed. In only exceptional cases the trustee was entitled to depart from the principle of next-in-the-line of succession, but even so, the trustee was under an obligation to appoint a fit person to perform the functions of the office or perform the service after having due regard to the claims of the members of the family.
(3.)POWER to make rules was given to Government be section 116 (2) (xxiii) and it was open to the Government to make rules providing for the qualifications to be possessed by the Officers and servants for appointment to non-hereditary offices in religious institutions, the qualifications to be possessed by hereditary servants for succession to office and the conditions of service of all such officers and servants. Under this rule making power the State Government made the Madras Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964. Under these rules an Archak or Pujari of the deity came under the definition of 'Ulthurai servant'. 'Ulthurai servant' is defined as a servant whose duties relate mainly to the performance or rendering assistance in the performance of pujas, rituals and other services to the deity, the recitation of mantras, vedas, prabandas thevarams and similar invocations and the performance of duties connected with such performance or recitation. Rule 12 provided that every 'Ulthurai servant', whether hereditary or non-hereditary whose duty it is to perform pujas and recite mantras, vedas, prabandams, thevarams and other invocations shall, before succeeding, or appointment to an office, obtain a certificate of fitness for performing his office, from the head of an institution imparting instructions in Agamas and ritualistic matters and recognised by the Commissioner, by general or special order or from the head of a math recognised by the Commissioner, by general or special order, or such other person as may be designated by the Commissioner, from time to time, for the purpose. By this rule the proper worship in the temple was secured whether the Archaka or Pujari or not. Section 107 of the Act emphasized that nothing contained in the Act shall, save as otherwise provided in section 106 and in clause (2) of Article 25 of the Constitution, be deemed to confer any power or impose any duty in contravention of the rights conferred on any religious denomination or any section thereof by Article 26 of the Constitution. Section 106 deals with the removal of discrimination in the matter of distribution of prasadam or theretham to the Hindu worshippers. That was a reform in the right direction and there is no challenge to it. The Act as a whole, it is conceded, did not interfere with the religious usages and practices of the temples.
The Principal Act of 1959 was amended in certain respects by the Amendment Act of 1970 which came into force on 8/01/1971. 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. The Statement of Objects and Reasons which are reiterated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu is as follows:
"In the year 1969 the Committee on Untouchability, Economic and Educational Development of the Schedule Castes has suggested in its report that the hereditary priesthood in the Hindu Society should be abolished, that the system can be replaced by an ecclesiastical organisation of men possessing the requisite educational qualifications who may be trained in recognised institutions in priesthood and that the line should be open to all candidates irrespective of caste, creed or race. In Tamil Nadu Archakas, Gurukkals and Poojaries and all Ulthurai servants in Hindu temples. The duties of Ulthural servants relate mainly to the performance of poojas, rituals and other services to the deity, the recitation of mantras, vedas, prabandas, thevarams and similar invocations and the performance of duties connected with such performance and recitations. Sections 55 and 56 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) provide for appointment of office holders and servants in the religious institutions by the trustees by applying the rule of hereditary succession also. As a step towards social reform Hindu temples have already been thrown open to all Hindus irrespective of caste... .."
In the light of the recommendations of the Committee and in view of the decision of this Court in Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1962) 2 SCR 931 = (AIR 1961 SC 564) 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 Ss. 55, 56 and 116 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959).
(2.)THE temples with which we are concerned are Saivite and Vaishnative temples in Tamil Nadu. Writ Petitions 70, 83, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443 and 444/71 are filed by the Archakas and Writ Petitions 13 and 14/1971 are filed by the Mathadhipatis to whose Math some temples are attached. As common questions were involved in all these petitions, arguments were addressed principally in Writ Petitions 13/1971 and 442/1971, and we are assured by counsel for both sides that they cover the points involved in all the other petitions.
The State Legislature of Tamil Nadu enacted The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 being (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959) hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act. It came into force on 2/12/1959. 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. It applied to all Hindu religious public institutions and endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu and repealed several acts which had previously governed the administration of Hindu Public Religious Institutions. It is sufficient to say here that the provisions of the Principal Act applied to the temples in the present petitions and the petitioners have no complaint against any of its provisions.
Section 55 of that Act provided for the appointment of officeholders and servants in such temples and Section 56 provided for the punishment of office-holders and servants. Section 55, broadly speaking, gave the trustee of the temple the power to appoint the office-holders or servants of the temple and also provided that where the office or service is hereditary the person next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed. In only exceptional cases the trustee was entitled to depart from the principle of next-in-the-line of succession, but even so, the trustee was under an obligation to appoint a fit person to perform the functions of the office or perform the service after having due regard to the claims of the members of the family.
(3.)POWER to make rules was given to Government be section 116 (2) (xxiii) and it was open to the Government to make rules providing for the qualifications to be possessed by the Officers and servants for appointment to non-hereditary offices in religious institutions, the qualifications to be possessed by hereditary servants for succession to office and the conditions of service of all such officers and servants. Under this rule making power the State Government made the Madras Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964. Under these rules an Archak or Pujari of the deity came under the definition of 'Ulthurai servant'. 'Ulthurai servant' is defined as a servant whose duties relate mainly to the performance or rendering assistance in the performance of pujas, rituals and other services to the deity, the recitation of mantras, vedas, prabandas thevarams and similar invocations and the performance of duties connected with such performance or recitation. Rule 12 provided that every 'Ulthurai servant', whether hereditary or non-hereditary whose duty it is to perform pujas and recite mantras, vedas, prabandams, thevarams and other invocations shall, before succeeding, or appointment to an office, obtain a certificate of fitness for performing his office, from the head of an institution imparting instructions in Agamas and ritualistic matters and recognised by the Commissioner, by general or special order or from the head of a math recognised by the Commissioner, by general or special order, or such other person as may be designated by the Commissioner, from time to time, for the purpose. By this rule the proper worship in the temple was secured whether the Archaka or Pujari or not. Section 107 of the Act emphasized that nothing contained in the Act shall, save as otherwise provided in section 106 and in clause (2) of Article 25 of the Constitution, be deemed to confer any power or impose any duty in contravention of the rights conferred on any religious denomination or any section thereof by Article 26 of the Constitution. Section 106 deals with the removal of discrimination in the matter of distribution of prasadam or theretham to the Hindu worshippers. That was a reform in the right direction and there is no challenge to it. The Act as a whole, it is conceded, did not interfere with the religious usages and practices of the temples.
The Principal Act of 1959 was amended in certain respects by the Amendment Act of 1970 which came into force on 8/01/1971. 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. The Statement of Objects and Reasons which are reiterated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu is as follows:
"In the year 1969 the Committee on Untouchability, Economic and Educational Development of the Schedule Castes has suggested in its report that the hereditary priesthood in the Hindu Society should be abolished, that the system can be replaced by an ecclesiastical organisation of men possessing the requisite educational qualifications who may be trained in recognised institutions in priesthood and that the line should be open to all candidates irrespective of caste, creed or race. In Tamil Nadu Archakas, Gurukkals and Poojaries and all Ulthurai servants in Hindu temples. The duties of Ulthural servants relate mainly to the performance of poojas, rituals and other services to the deity, the recitation of mantras, vedas, prabandas, thevarams and similar invocations and the performance of duties connected with such performance and recitations. Sections 55 and 56 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) provide for appointment of office holders and servants in the religious institutions by the trustees by applying the rule of hereditary succession also. As a step towards social reform Hindu temples have already been thrown open to all Hindus irrespective of caste... .."
In the light of the recommendations of the Committee and in view of the decision of this Court in Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1962) 2 SCR 931 = (AIR 1961 SC 564) 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 Ss. 55, 56 and 116 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.