Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Unknown on 5 March, 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.03.2018 RONOUNCED ON: 05.03.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVEN W.P.(MD)No.19004 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15366 & 15790 of 2017 M.Jagathalapradapan ...Peti tioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009. 2.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 119, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai ? 600 034. 3.The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Madurai ? 1. 4.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 5.Madurai Adheenam Mutt Rep. by its 292nd Madathipathi Sri-la-Sri Arunagirinatha Sri Gnanasambanda Desika Paramacharya Swamigal No.70, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai ? 1. 6.Sri-La-Sri Arunagirinatha Sri Gnanasambanda Desika Paramacharya Swamigal the 292nd Madathipathi of Madurai Adheenam Mutt, No.70, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai ? 1. 7.Sri-La-Sri Kumarasundara Sri Gnanasambanda Desika Paramacharya Swamigal the Chinnapandara Sannidhini / Iliya Sannidhanam / Junior Pontiff the Successor to the 292nd Madathipathi of Madurai Adeenam Mutt No.70, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai ? 1. 8.Nithyananda @ Rajasekar, Son of Late Arunachalam, Nithiyananda Dhiyanapeetam Adi Anna Malai, Thiruvannamalai. ...Res pondents [Dismissed as against the first respondent, by order dated 23.11.2017] PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take suitable and appropriate action against the 8th respondent and protect the 5th respondent the Madurai Adheenam Mutt in the hands of the 8th respondent in the lights of the petitioner's representation dated 29.09.2017 and 04.10.2017 and permanently prevent the 8th respondent from interfering with the 5th respondent Mutt. !For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader for R.1 and R.4 Mr.Maharaja, SGP for R2 & R3 Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman for R.5 & R.6 No Appearance for R.7 Mr.A.Raghunathan, Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Elayaraja for R.8 :ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the eighth respondent and to protect the fifth respondent Mutt, by considering the petitioner's representations dated 29.09.2017 and 04.10.2017 and to permanently prevent the eighth respondent from interfering with the fifth respondent Mutt by an appropriate order by this court.
2. The facts of the case, as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, are as follows:
2.1 According to the petitioner, he is the founder Trustee of 'Madurai Meenakshi Childrens Trust' and involved in various social and religious activities. He is the follower and worshipper of 292nd Madathipathi of the fifth respondent Mutt, the sixth respondent herein and the Junior Pontiff of Madurai Adheenam Mutt / seventh respondent herein.
2.2 Apprehending that the eighth respondent, namely Nithyananda @ Rajasekar, who is claiming to be the Head of Bhidathi Ashram, Karnataka, is trying to trespass into the Adheenam Mutt, despite the orders of this Court, thereby, attempting to swindle the funds of the Mutt and to capture the properties and temples attached thereto, the petitioner has submitted representations on 29.09.2017 and 04.10.2017, before the official respondents for necessary action and because of their inaction, he is before this Court.
3. The sum and substance as well as the arguments put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are as follows:
3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dispute arose in the year 2012 pursuant to the appointment made by the sixth respondent / 292nd Madathipathi of Madurai Adheenam Mutt, declaring the eighth respondent, a stranger to the mutt, as his successor / 293rd Madathipathi of Madurai Adheenam Mutt, without following the due process of customs and practices and execution of a Deed of Trust with the eighth respondent to administer, manage, control and supervise the Madurai Adheenam. Aggrieved over the same, religious institutions as well as Madathipathis of several Adheenam Mutts have filed various petitions, including W.P.Nos.12915 and 26567 of 2012 & W.P(MD)No.8260 of 2012, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court, after a detailed and elaborate discussion, by order dated 31.10.2012, observed that the 8th respondent is no more the pontiff of the 5th respondent and on account of removal of the eighth respondent from the position of 293rd Pontiff of Madurai Adheenam on 20.10.2012, pending disposal of these petitions, this Court itself directed the parties to adhere the civil proceedings pending and subsequently, the sixth respondent has also lodged a complaint as against the eighth respondent. Challenging the said removal, the eighth respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.85 of 2013 and the same is pending.
3.2 Prior to the disposal of W.P.Nos.12915 and 26567 of 2012 & W.P(MD)No.8260 of 2012, the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, has filed a suit in O.S.No.1000 of 2012, challenging the appointment of the eighth respondent as 293rd Madathipathi and the 'Deed of Trust' dated 23.04.2012 as well as to remove the sixth respondent from the Mutt. In the said suit, an interlocutory application in I.A.No.966 of 2012 has been filed, wherein, by order dated 26.04.2013, the lower Court has stayed the operation of the Deed of Trust dated 23.04.2012 as well as the appointment of eighth respondent.
3.3 Aggrieved by the order of interim stay, the eighth respondent has preferred a civil revision petition in C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2013 and this Court, by order dated 19.08.2014, has dismissed the petition, holding that as per Section 6(13) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act and also as per the scheme framed by this Court, while a Madathipathi is alive, another Madathipathi cannot be appointed.
3.4 While things stood thus, the eighth respondent, with an ulterior motive to create problems, once again, attempted to enter into the premises of Madurai Aadheenam so as to cause hindrance to the Mutt and usurp the properties of the Mutt. Moving one step ahead, the eighth respondent, suppressing the earlier orders, has filed Crl.O.P(MD)No.13323 of 2017, seeking police protection, so as to enter the Mutt premises, in his capacity as 293rd Madathipathi which is per se illegal.
3.5 Among other things, the main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the management of the traditional Mutt shall never be handed over to the eighth respondent, who has a criminal background and is a habitual offender. In order to prove that the eighth respondent is a habitual offender, having involved in sexual abuse, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the controversial video clippings released in the year 2010, portraying his intimacy with an actress. Though the eighth respondent claims that such video was a morphing one using the advancement of technology, the said plea was negatived by the report submitted by Forensic Science Lab, Delhi. The learned counsel for the petitioner also narrated the details of the complaints lodged against the eighth respondent, by his own disciples, including one Aarthi Rao. Reliance was also made on the imposition of sentence and imprisonment for 20 years by the Courts of law on Gurmeet Ram Singh, a self proclaimed Godman, for his alleged involvement of sexual abuse like that of the eighth respondent.
3.6 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that based on the illegal trust deed dated 12.04.2012, the petitioner has given a complaint against the eighth respondent. According to the learned counsel, the conduct of the eighth respondent is unknown to principles of Saivism. The learned counsel further submitted that the eighth respondent is attempting to take over the Madurai Adheenam, claiming to be the 293rd Pontiff and attempted to meddle with the activities of the mutt. The learned counsel, during the course of oral arguments and also in the written arguments, submitted that for one to even become a Thambiran, he must be a saivite and get various Deeksha?s from the Gurumahasannidanam of the particular mutt and only then he can become a Thambiran and therefore, the appointment of the eighth respondent as Junior Pontiff/293rd Pontiff is illegal. Further, it was contended that one can easily be identified by his name as to which religion/sub clause of the religion he belongs to The Saiva Sanyasys will bear the names of Nayanmars, Acharyars, SamayAchariyars and the name of Lord Siva, Muruga, Ganesa etc., The name suffixed with ?ANANDA? denotes the person belongs to ?Vedanta? philosophy and not the Saiva Sithandha philosophy. The name NithyANANDA simply identifies the 8th Respondent as the vedanthi and not the saiva Sithandhi and no way connected to the Madurai Adheenam and its Philosophy.
3.7 It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the eighth respondent is basically functioning from Karnataka and not from Madurai. Therefore, he could never have performed the duties of Tamibran. Also, the illegal affidavit of appointment of the sixth respondent, which is now disputed by him and the statement of the eighth respondent before various forums including this Court in Crl.O.P (M.D) 13323/2017 at paragraphs 1, 4, 6, 10, 12 and 13, where he claimed to be the 293rd pontiff clearly proves that all along the eighth respondent has taken a claim only as the 293rd pontiff and not a junior pontiff and it is only for the purpose of this case, a different stand is taken.
3.8 It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Madathipathi of one mutt cannot head another mutt and the 8th Respondent is admittedly a religious head of Nithyanandha Dhyanapeetam having its entire function at Bidadi, Karnataka and he still continues to be the Guru and religious Head of his own styled Mutt which is having different philosophy, tenets, culture and practice under the name and style of Nithyanandha Dhyanapeetam. Even after his appointment, he is celebrating and continuing his religious performance in his own style Mutt and celebrated Guru Poornima at his Ashram and giving initiation (Dheekcha) to his Sishyas in his own styled Mutt. In his counter affidavit, the 8th respondent stated that he has personally initiated more than 1 lakh persons across Tamil Nadu into Shiva Deeksha (Samaya Deeksha). Even assuming he is a junior pontiff of Madurai Aadheenam, it is illegal for him to initiate Deeksha to anybody, when 292nd Ponditff is alive. This statement of the 8th respondent itself is sufficient to prove that he being polluting the sanctity of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt and its philosophy. The tenets and philosophy of his own styled Ashram called Nithyanandha Dhyanapeetam is entirely different from the philosophy of Madurai Adheenam.
3.9 It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the eighth respondent had renounced the world and become an ascetic under the 6th respondent, then he ought to have continuously stayed in the Madurai mutt and having renounced his stature as a guru, he ought to have surrendered all the properties belonging to his self styled Ashram and must have transferred the same to the Madurai Adheenam Mutt, but on the contrary, by creation of an illegal trust, the properties of Madurai Adheenam were planned to be vested with the eighth respondent.
3.10 The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to an order in I.A.No.348/2015 in O.S.No.90/2015, where the eighth respondent had staked a claim as the head of different mutts, thereby pointing out that he is an habitual mutt grabber. It was also contented that the role of the sixth respondent is not only limited to the observance and development of Saivite Philosophies, but also the properties worth thousands of Crores of Rupees are to be administered in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'HR & CE Act') and therefore, when no action is taken by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner as an ardent devotee for Thirugnanasambandar and a persuasion towards Saivism and particularly Madurai Adheenam Mutt, had filed the writ petition, which is maintainable as the same falls within the realm of Section 6 (17) and 6 (18) of the Act and even according to the orders of the Division Bench of this Hon?ble Court in W.P (MD) Nos.12915 and 26567 of 2012 and W.P (MD) No.8260 of 2012 dated 31.10.2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in V.Thiagarajan, President, Hindu Baktha Jana Sabai v. State of Tamil Nadu [2012 (1) CWC 22].
3.11 Aggrieved by the illegal attempts of the 8th respondent, the petitioner is before this Court and it is his specific contention that when the order of appointment of the eighth respondent as 293rd Madathipathi is stayed by the lower Court, which was upheld by this Court and moreover, the said appointment letter itself was revoked by the sixth respondent by letter dated 20.10.2012, the act of the eighth respondent in introducing himself as 293rd Guru Maha Sannidhanam / Successor to the 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam is highly illegal.
4. Per contra, the specific contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel representing the learned counsel appearing for the eighth respondent, are as follows:
4.1 Denying all the allegations leveled by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is specifically contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the eighth respondent that the eight respondent was appointed as 293rd Guru Maha Sannidhanam, on 27.04.2012, by his predecessor, 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam, sixth respondent herein, after performing all the religious ceremonies viz., Visheda Deeksha, Mantra Kaashayam, Nirvana Deeksha and Acharya Abhishekam, since the sixth respondent has acknowledged him as his disciple and follower. Some third parties having no vested interests, have filed several petitions with a sole intention to prevent him from performing his regular functions.
4.2 Adding fuel to fire, the above said parties, who are anti-social as well as anti-spiritual hooligan elements, had, somehow, managed to have the sixth respondent to give a news paper advertisement in Tamil Daily such as Dhina Malar and Dhinakaran in the form of public notice dated 20.10.2012, informing the cancellation of the appointment of the eighth respondent on 23.04.2012 and also the affidavit dated 27.04.2012, subsequent to the filing of O.S.No.1000 of 2012.
4.3 After satisfying himself about the efficacy as well as spirituality of the eighth respondent, the sixth respondent, has appointed him as his successor / 293rd Guru Maha Sannidhanam, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the HR & CE Act and also as per the traditions and usage prevalent in the Aadheenam, who has to look into the affairs of the Mutt.
4.4 It is the peculiar submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the eighth respondent that the appointment of the eight respondent as the successor, duly following all the customs and rituals of the Madurai Aadheenam including Acharya Abhisbekham, is irrevocable as per the Mutt Traditions and the sixth respondent / 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam / present pontiff, in his lifetime, can appoint only one person as his successor.
Revoking his appointment as 293rd pontiff, on one hand, the sixth respondent, on the other, in a hurried manner, has appointed the seventh respondent as the Junior Pontiff / Chinna Pandara Sannidhi / Illaya Sannidhanam and thereby, attempting to appoint him as his successor. When the power of revocation / cancellation is not vested with the sixth respondent, as per the by-laws of the Mutt, the appointment of the eighth respondent as 293rd Pontiff is valid and such being so, the 293rd pontiff can only make appointments such as Junior Pontiff, etc., therefore, the appointment of the seventh respondent as Junior Pontiff, by the sixth respondent, is invalid.
4.5 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the eighth respondent further submitted that the cases referred to by the petitioner have no relevancy with the present one, as the eighth respondent has been facing those criminal cases before the appropriate Courts without adopting any dilatory tactics. Therefore, the act of the petitioner in referring to those cases before this Court is not justifiable. An objection was also raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds of locus standi and res judicata.
4.6 It was also contended on behalf of the 8th respondent that initially, he is the 293rd Pontiff, though a different picture was attempted to be projected by pointing out to the counter that he was appointed only as Junior Pontiff through rituals by performance of Acharya Abishekam and not on the strength of the Affidavit or Trust deed. Further, once a person is appointed as a Pontiff, he cannot be removed and the appointment of the eighth respondent cannot be nullified even if the sixth respondent is disqualified. A judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ambalavana Pandara Sannathi v. State of Tamil Nau and another [AIR 1983 Mad 72] was also relied upon in support of the contention that the appointment of junior pontiff is a right of the religious institution and the same cannot be interfered without proper cause.
4.7 Denying that the eighth respondent is not acquainted with the saivite sidhantha, the learned Senior Counsel for the eight respondent, placing reliance upon the photographs and the counter affidavit of the eighth respondent, contended that the eighth respondent has undergone training under various gurus from a tender age and has rendered many discourses.
4.8 It was also pointed by the learned Senior Counsel, relying upon the various medical records that the 8th respondent is incapable of performing any sexual act and that the cases filed against him in United States of America have been rejected with huge costs. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that as the 292nd pontiff was ill, the eighth respondent in the capacity of the junior Pondiff, attempted to enter into the mutt only to perform the poojas and day to-day activities. It was vociferously contended that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person and by placing reliance upon the orders of the same Division Bench, contended that only a public interest litigation can be initiated. It was also contended that only the financial irregularities are the subject matter of O.S.No.1000 of 2012 and no specific allegation is there against the eighth respondent and there is no exigency for the petitioner to approach this Court, as several suits are pending with regard to the status of the 6th respondent and 8th respondent. An objection was also raised regarding the representations of the petitioner alleging that there is no proof of sending or acknowledgement and in the absence of the same, the writ petition cannot be entertained.
5. On the contrary, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent are as follows:
5.1 The sixth respondent / 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam, who heads the Mutt, its movable and immovable properties situated in India and abroad, including the temples owned by Madurai Aadheenam (Thirugnanasambanda Swamigal Aadheenam), as well as hereditary trustee of several South Indian Temples, has the right to appoint his successor as well as to withdraw such appointments. The eighth respondent / head of Nithiyananda Dhiyana Peedam, has approached the fifth respondent Mutt, in order to learn more about Saint Thirugnanasambandar / founder of the Mutt, but he speaks more about vedantha rather than Saiva Siddhantha philosophy. Having observed the activities as well as attitudes of the eighth respondent, the sixth respondent has placed him under observation in the Mutt, so as to enable the eighth respondent to learn the customary practice as well as Saiva Siddhantha Philosophy.
5.2 The stand taken by the learned Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent is that having observed the eighth respondent and with the fond hope that he would act in consonance with the traits required for a saivite guru and for the development of saivism, he has placed the eighth respondent for the position as his follower / successor. After knowing the criminal backgrounds of the eighth respondent and due to acute public agitation as well as the advice of the Mutt's well-wishers / Kindred Aadheenam, the appointment of the eighth respondent was revoked, by him and a criminal complaint was also lodged against the eighth respondent.
5.3 Since the appointment itself came to be revoked, there is no question of the eighth respondent entering into the Mutt claiming himself as 293rd Maha Sannidhanam and therefore, this petition is not warranted.
5.4 After the filing of O.S.No.1000 of 2012 and after the revocation of the appointment letter as well as Deed of Trust, the 8th respondent despite the order of injunction against him, has been deploying several methods to capture the mutt. In order to overcome his flaws, which is the root cause for dragging the prestigious mutt to the courts, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that the eighth respondent, at the time when he was in the Mutt, has obtained signatures from the sixth respondent, in several affidavits, without his knowledge and used the same before this Court. In this regard, a copy of the written statement submitted by the sixth respondent before the lower Court in O.S.No.83 of 2012, is produced before this Court, wherein, it is averred as follows:
?9. The 1st defendant submits that in fact the 2nd defendant/Nithyananda came to the Mutt in order to get blessings and also to know more about Saint Thirugnanasambandar, the founder of this Ancient Mutt. While so, the said Nithyananda's speeches only Yoga rather than Saiva Siddhantha, the philosophy of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt. The 2nd defendant Nithyananda wanted to be a disciple of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt, simultaneously keeping his post as head of Pidathi Ashram. Though it was advised him that one cannot be a follower of the 2 different Ashram which belong to different Philosophy, tenants and cult. However the 2nd defendant Nithyananda promised that gradually he will elevate and switch over to Saiva Siddantha Philosophy and slowly withdraw himself from Dhiyana Peedam. Taking his promise to be true the 1st defendant kept the 2nd defendant under observation in the Madurai Aadheenam Mutt. The 2nd defendant was only kept under observation and not in any other manner. However during such observation the 2nd defendant could not change himself from his attitude, principles and his method of routine life. He could not follow, adopt and accept the philosophy of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt. During his stay for just few days in Madurai Aadheenam Mutt he made an attempt to spoil and pollute the well cherished long tradition of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt and its philosophy. He attempted to act against the philosophy of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt...
...Further the 2nd defendant dislikes in doing Poojas by calling himself as GOD. He started proclaiming and calling himself as 293rd pontiff. The 1st defendant came to know the bad antecedents of the 2nd defendant such as involvement of 2nd defendant in several criminal cases of sexual abuse.
10. On seeing all his immoral, illegal and unlawful and unsuitable customary practice of the 2nd defendant, the 1st defendant simply withdraw himself from keeping him under observation in the Mutt and sending him out on 19.10.2012...
11. ...
12. The 1st defendant submits that during the shorter stay of the 2nd defendant in the Madurai Aadheenam Mutt, the 2nd defendant has indulged in criminal activities of taking signature from the 1st defendant in the document prepared, fabricated and created by the 2nd defendant to suit his convenience of making himself to be a Madatheepathi in Madurai Aadheenam Mutt in a short cut method. With this mala fide intention, the 2nd defendant has created a Trust deed and obtained signature from the 1st defendant and get it registered by canvassing and convincing the 1st defendant as though it is for the betterment of the Madurai Aadheenam Mutt. The 2nd defendant gained faith from the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant blindly believed the 2nd defendant. Taking advantage of this position, the 2nd defendant has obtained the 1st defendant's signature in the affidavit drafted and fabricated by the 1st defendant....
... All those affidavits, documents and trust deeds, are not executed and signed by the 1st defendant with his free knowledge and consent. It was stealthy, illegally and fraudulently obtained by the 2nd defendant.?
5.5 The learned counsel thus drew the attention of this Court to the consistent stand taken regarding the trust and contended that not only the 8th respondent was found to be unfit to head the mutt which gives importance to saivite agamas and philosophies, but also came to know about his criminal intentions and antecedents, which also disqualify him from heading the mutt during his period of observation and ousted him. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents that in view of the interim orders of the learned Sub-Judge in O.S No.1000/2012 and the orders of this Court in CRP (MD).No.1288 of 2013, the eighth respondent cannot take recourse under the Trust Deed as all further actions based on the rights arising out of the trust deed, has been injuncted.
6. The second respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit, narrating the events that took place and they had taken a stand that the appointment of the eighth respondent is stayed by the lower Court and the matter is pending adjudication before the lower Court. The learned Special Government pleader, appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that though the cause of action for the writ petition is different from the earlier litigations and the writ petition, if the petitioner still finds any fault in the implementation of the order of this Court, it is for him to file an appropriate Contempt Petition. Having admitted the receipt of the representations of the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader, in view of the orders of the Civil Court, affirmed by this Court, submitted that the eighth respondent cannot interfere with the affairs of the 5th respondent mutt and that the day to-day activities are adhered to without any issues by the 6th and 7th respondents.
7. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused all the voluminous documents placed on record and the written arguments filed by the petitioner and the eighth respondent. There is no representation for the seventh respondent, despite notice served on him.
8. During the course of the arguments, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent is a formal party and therefore, he is not pressing the writ petition as against the first respondent. Recording such submission, this Court, by order dated 23.11.2017, has dismissed the writ petition as against the first respondent.
9. During the course of arguments, when it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the eighth respondent as to how, the eight respondent could stake a claim as the 293rd pontiff in the affidavit filed in support of the vacate the interim injunction petition, when the 292nd pontiff was alive more so after the orders of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge in CRP confirming the interim injunction against him, had become final, it was agreed by the learned counsel to file an affidavit to the effect of withdrawing the claim as 293rd pontiff and also filed an affidavit dated 02/02/2018 to such effect and the same is placed on record.
9.1 Before proceeding with this case, when this Court suggested the parties to go before the competent Civil Court to resolve the dispute, all the parties, more particularly, the eight respondent, wanted this matter to be heard and decided on merits. Hence, this Court proceeded with the case on merits.
10. Before going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to reiterate the facts about Madurai Aadheenam as well as the procedure for appointing Madathipathi at Madurai Aadheenam, which was already referred to by a Division Bench of this Court.
10.1 Madurai Aadheenam is a world renowned Monastery spreading the cause of Saivism. As per the events chronicled in various literatures, the Madurai Adheenam had its origin around the 6th Century A.D. and has been in existence. It came into prominence during the period of great Nayanmar Thirugnanasambandhar, who spent his entire life time for the upliftment of Saivism and Tamil, with utmost devotion exhibited by none of his contemporaries or Tamil Scholars after him. His ?Thevarams? spell out the importance he gave for Tamil, which in itself if practised would help one to reach the heavenly bode of the God. The saint is the first to preach that the worship of the Lord must be in Tamil and he did so by singing the various ?thevarams? at various Shiva Temples. It was a time, when there was a threat to Saivism and Tamil, as various cultures alien to this land was determined to destroy not only the culture, but also the wealth of this land. According to literary records, a great debate between the scholars of Jainism and Saivism in the Madurai Adheenam. Saint Thirugnanasambandhar succeeded in debate as against the Jain Scholars and it is only from this point of time, Madurai Adheenam began to gain greater prominence in social, religious as well as in the field of Literature. This Adheenam has been a guiding light for spreading of saivite philosophy for several centuries together. The movable and immovable properties of Adheenam are worth several thousands of crores. Apart from the movables in the form of jewels and cash reserves, other objects of antique value, including the temples that come under the control of the Adheenam.
10.2 After the enactment of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the control of Adheenam also came under the supervision of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and Guru Maha Saneedhanam, heads the Adheenam. The Guru Maha Saneedhanam is the Administrative as well as the Financial Controller of the entire Adheenam, which have preserved for more than 1400 years.
10.3 The Adheenakarthar is the head of the Adheenam, also known as Guru Maha Sannithanam / Pandara Sannathi and under him, a body of Ascetics which includes (a) Pradesis, who are Sanyasis waiting for ordainment into the holy order of that Adheenam; (b) several ordained Tambirans entrusted with various district religious and administrative duties by the Adheenakarthar; and (c) one Junior Pontiff who is also known and called in the spiritual field as 'Elaya Sannithanam' or 'Elavarasu' or 'Chinnapattam'. All the above are collectively called as Tirukootam (Holy Crowd).
10.4 The procedure for nominating a Successor is well established and it has been followed in all these years. The following procedures are mandatory to become a Saiva Sanyasi in a Saiva Adheena Mutt which are universally followed in all Saiva Adheenas (Mutt) as customs and usage:
1.Should be Saivite;
2.Yathra Kaashayam (Pradesi)
3.Samaya Deekshai
4.Visheda Deekshai
5.Mandira Kashayam
6.Nirvana Deekshai
7.Dhikshai Kurai
8.Aarukatti (6-Katti)
9.Acharya Abhishegam
10. Junior Pontiff 10.5 It has been the tradition and culture as well as the custom of the Madurai Adheenam to appoint a person who is ingrained in Saivite scriptures and customs. The incumbent undergoes rigorous training and has to be well versed in Saivite Philosophy. There has been a structured process in the selection of the Guru Maha Saneedhanam of the Madurai Adheenam till this point of time. Generally, as per custom and tradition of Madurai Adheenam, one of the Thambirans or junior monk would be appointed as Ilaya Sannidhanam to succeed Guru Maha Sannidhanam.
10.6 During his lifetime, Adheenakarthar identifies a Tambiran, out of the available Tambirans in his Adheenam, whom he considers duly qualified to succeed him after his demise and then he nominates such Tambiran as the Ilaya Sannithanam or Junior Pontiff by performing a mandatory ritual namely ?Acharya Abhiseka? to be conducted within the premises of the Adheenam in the presence of disciples of Adheenam and the representatives of Kindred Adheenams.
10.7 Sanyasi of Saivite Adheenam is selected from Saiva Velalar, Mudaliar and Karkatha Velalar. The reason for soliciting from the particular sect is that such person will be vegetarian from his hereditary. A saivite alone is entitled to become Sanyasi of a Saivite Adheenam. In case, the Adheenakarthar in his spiritual wisdom, considers that no eligible Thambiran is available, then it becomes obligatory by custom that he has to approach the Heads of either Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam or Dharmapuram Adheenam to seek an eligible and duly qualified Tambiran from their Adheenams to be nominated as Junior Pontiff of his Adheenam.
10.8 The Adheenakarthar, in his spiritual wisdom, selects one Tambiran from his Adheenam and leaves a Will nominating such Tambiran to be his successor after his demise. After his demise, the person so nominated by the deceased Adheenakarthar through the Will, becomes the Adheenakarthar of the Adheenam after the performance of the mandatory ritual of ?Acharya Abhishekam? done in the presence of the disciples of the Adheenam and representatives of Kindred Adheenams. In case, the Adheenakarthar attains Mukti (reaching the heavenly abode) suddenly and if he had not nominated the Junior Pontiff during his lifetime or if he has not left a Will, then the spiritual disciples attached to the Adheenam and in consultation with the Adheenakarthars of Tiruvavaduthurai Adheenam and/or Dharmapuram Adheenam arrive at a consensus, select a Tambiran whom they consider would be the proper successor to become the Head of Adheenam out of the eligible and qualified Tambirans. The mandatory ritual of ?Acharya Abhishekan? would be done for such selected Tambiran in the presence of the disciples of the Adheenam and representatives of Kindred Adheenams.
11. It is a sorry state of affair that because of the irregular appointment of the eighth respondent, a traditional Aadheenam Mutt is made to knock at the doors of this Court seeking justice. The submission put forth by the sixth respondent of renowned Mutt that without his knowledge, the eighth respondent has obtained his signatures in various deeds as well as affidavits is not only incorrigible but also callous, as it is his moral responsibility to run the Mutt without giving any room to debate and also without affecting the faith / trust of its worshippers. This Court is not in consonance with the contention of the eight respondent that the removal by the sixth respondent will not disqualify his appointment. A person heading the prestigious institution must be consistent in his approach, not above the customary practice of the mutt and the law and should not take decisions according to his own whims and fancies in violation of the procedures followed under saivite mutts for appointing the successor, which is possible only by elevating a Thambiran appointed as Junior Pontiff. Though the appointment of Ilaya sannidanam or Junior Pontiff from among the Tambirans is common to saivite mutts, each mutt have their own internal rituals that are to be scrupulously followed. Likewise, renunciation of the worldly pleasures is a primordial trait for a selected Tambiran, who eventually becomes the Pontiff by succession and the main philosophy of the saiva sidhantha is the attainment of ?mukthi? i.e., to end the cycle of birth by attaining the lotus feet of Lord Shiva. In the words of great saint Thiruvalluvar, renouncing the worldly pleasures and curbing of the desires is essential to end the cycle of birth, which he has described in the following couplets as follows:
Couplet 343 (Jwt[):
mly;ntz;Lk; Ie;jd; g[yj;ij tply;ntz;Lk;
ntz;oa vy;yhk; xU';F/ Let the five senses be destroyed; and at the same time, let everything associated or derived from the five senses be abandoned that the ascetic has formerly desired.
Couplet 344 (Jwt[):
,ay;g[MFk; nehd;gpw;Fxd;W ,d;ik cilik kay;MFk; kw;Wk; bgah;j;J/ To be altogether destitute is the proper condition of those who perform austerities; if they possess anything, it will change their resolution and bring them back to their confused state. One must truly renounce every pleasure and attachment failing which, it will create multiple attachments resulting in the fall of the person.
Couplet 346 (Jwt[):
ahh; vdJ vd;D"; brUf;FmWg;ghd; thndhh;f;F cah;e;j cyfk; g[Fk;/ He who destroys the pride which says "I", "mine" will enter a world which is difficult even to the Gods to attain. It is only when destroys his attachment and identification to material things, he can continue in his ascetic journey.
Couplet 361 (mth mWj;jy;):
mthvd;g vy;yh caph;f;Fk;v"; "hd;Wk;
jthmg; gpwg;g[<Dk; tpj;J/ Desire is the seed, which produces unceasing births, at all times, to all creatures. If one has to end the cycle of birth, he must end his desire towards worldly pleasures.
Couplet 364 (mth mWj;jy;):
J}ca;ik vd;gJ mthtpd;ik kw;wJ thma;ik ntz;l tUk;/.
Purity of mind is a state where one is free from desire; and that freedom from desire ensues one in the search of truth, which is nothing but reaching god.
Couplet 366 (mth mWj;jy;):
m";Rt njhUk; mwnd xUtid t";rpg;g njhUk; mth/ It is the chief duty of an ascetic to watch against desire with fear; for it has power to deceive and destroy him. The desire for any pleasure will make one deviate from the path of ascetic life.
12. In this case, it is not in dispute, that various criminal cases are pending and the eighth respondent in his quest for power has been a prolific litigant against various mutts of various beliefs claiming the status of madathipathi of all of them. Leading the life of a sanyasi is also one of the primordial traits. The life of a sanyasi is embedded with Brahmacharya, which if practised will lead to self-realisation. It involves control of the senses and imposes mental discipline. The basic traits required for a person who has denounced the worldly pleasures is lacking in the eighth respondent as he is behind power and is tainted with allegations regarding sexual practices and abuse in his ashram, run under different philosophy completely alien to saivite philosophy. The photographs produced by the eighth respondent clearly manifest that he has not been leading a simple life, whereby the desires in life are eradicated leading to a destitute life. The lavish life style is alien to Saivism, where the ultimate aim to achieve ?mukthi? is to renounce all attachments and is explained by the concept of ?Pathi, Pasu and Pasam?.
13. Even as per the judgment relied upon by the 8th respondent in Ambalavana Pandara Sannathi case (cited supra), it is clear that the junior pontiff must be from the same mutt, who must be appointed as per the procedures and can be removed under certain circumstances. A perusal of the scheme of the mutt filed by the 8th respondent himself states that the junior pontiff is to be appointed from the sishyas of Thirugnanasambandar Adheenam and after several Dheekshas and Kashayams only, Acharya Abisekham is to be conducted.
14. In this case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the eighth respondent is not from this mutt. It appears that the procedures stated above that have to be followed before a person is recognized as a Thambiran and then appointed as Junior Pontiff, has not been followed in the present case. Even as per the case of the eighth respondent, only the Acharya Abishegam was performed and there are no particulars as to the dates on which various deekshas and kashyams were given. Even according to the eighth respondent, all the deekshas and kashyams were not given by the sixth respondent. The Sixth respondent has initially by-passed the procedures, for unknown reasons and later realized his mistakes and rectified the same. In any case, such actions, in the opinion of this Court, may not stand the judicial scrutiny as the appointment of a successor pontiff, though a right, is always subject to adherence to basic principles and procedures followed by the mutt from the time of Thirugnanasambandar.
15. It is also evident that for a person to be appointed as a madathipathi, he has to be a sishya of the another and must denounce everything attached to him. In this case, the eighth respondent is a self-
styled Madapathi of Nithyananda Dyanapeetam, Karnataka. Whileso, his claim of being a follower of the sixth respondent is fallacious. Also, a madathipathi of one mutt normally cannot be appointed as a pontiff of any other mutt, which follows a different philosophy. In the present case, in addition to the above, the eighth respondent has his own ashram at Bidadi. In such event, he could not have resided continuously at Madurai, which is also not his case. It is also admitted by the eighth respondent that numerous civil and criminal cases are pending against him. It is not out of place to record that the objections of the eight respondent that no proof has been furnished for sending the representations, despite postal receipts, has no valid force, since the learned counsel for the respondents has admitted the receipt by them.
16. It is no doubt true that the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.12915 & 26567 of 2012 and W.P(MD)No.8260 of 2012, which were filed questioning the appointment of the eighth respondent and also levelling some allegations against him, after elaborate arguments, by order dated 31.10.2012, has observed as follows:
?So far as the present case is concerned, since already a suit has been filed, we are not inclined to issue any direction in the present writ petitions. More so, when 10th respondent is now said to have been removed from the position of 293rd Mutt of Madurai Adheenam. Suffice it to note that State can file appropriate application in the suit pending before the Sub Court, Madurai, to get any interim direction, if they so desire. All the issues are left open.?
17. Thereafter, the learned Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Madurai, in I.A.No.966 of 2012 in O.S.No.1000 of 2012, after a detailed and elaborate argument, had by order dated 26.02.2013, stayed the operation of the Deed of Trust dated 23.04.2012 as well as the affidavit appointing the eighth respondent as 293rd Aadheenakarthar of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt till the disposal of the suit.
18. Aggrieved over the same, the eighth respondent has moved the Court dealing with civil revision petitions and challenged the said interim order by filing C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2013, wherein, this Court, by order dated 19.08.2014, has given a categorical finding and upheld the order of interim stay, thereby, dismissed the civil revision petition. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted as under:
?7.The learned Judge considered the pleadings and also the guidelines for appointing the Madathipathi, concluded that the petitioner did not fulfil the requirements to be appointed as 293rd Guru. The learned Judge has held that the appointment of the petitioner as 293rd Junior Guru, while 292nd Guru is still alive, is invalid and the same is contrary to the practice of Math. He also held that according to the deposition as per the usage and customs of the Math, a person, who is not a Thambiran or Thiruvadhuthurai Aadheenam of Thanjavur or Aadheenam of Dharmavaram or a Devotee of Madurai Aadheenam, can be appointed as Madathipathi of Math. When 292nd Aadheenam is alive, appointing Nithyanandha as 293rd Junior Aadheenam, is against the usage and customs of Math. The learned Judge held that balance of convenience is in favour of the first respondent and functioning of two Trustees will lead to administrative problem. Based on these reasons, the learned Judge granted stay of the Trust deed and declaration deed, dated 27.04.2012, till the disposal of the suit...
12.From the records, it is seen that as per Section 6(13) of the Act and the scheme framed by this Court while a Madathipathi is alive another Madathipathi cannot be appointed. Further, qualifications and eligibility criteria for a person as Madathipathi, is clearly mentioned and followed for a long time. The petitioner does not fulfil any of the conditions for being appointed as Madathipathi.?
19. In the meanwhile, pending disposal of these petitions, the appointment of the eighth respondent itself was revoked by the sixth respondent by letter dated 20.10.2012, which was also challenged by the eighth respondent in O.S.No.85 of 2013 and the same is pending.
20. After the order of dismissal made in C.R.P(MD).No.1288/2013, dated 19.08.2014, the eighth respondent has filed Crl.O.P(MD)No.13323 of 2017 after a lapse of about three years, seeking police protection to enter into the premises of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt, wherein, this Court has not granted any order.
21. This Court, while hearing the matter, at the initial stage of arguments, has passed an interim order, observing as follows:
?..This Court, prima facie, is of the view that despite the orders of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court as well as the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, the eighth respondent is illegally attempting to interfere with the administration of the fifth respondent ? Mutt.
9. Hence, there shall be an order of interim injunction restraining the eighth respondent or any one claiming under him, from in any way interfering or entering into the premises of the fifth respondent ? Mutt until further orders of this Court.?
22. Despite the earlier orders of this Court in the Civil Revision Petition, the eighth respondent has attempted to take over the mutt and in the process also sought police protection in the capacity as 293rd Guru Maha Sannidanam. It is under such circumstances, this Court has been approached.
Therefore, the cause of action for the present writ petition is different and therefore, is not barred by res judicata.
23. Insofar as the maintainability is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question herein is not only related to religious functions, but also administrative functions. The Hon?ble Division Bench has in earlier round of litigation, held the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner to be maintainable. In the decision in V.Thiagarajan case (cited supra), this Court has held as follows:
?6. ...(a)It is stated that the petitioner is not a regular visitor of the temple and if he has got any grievance regarding the infraction of the procedure set out under Section 34 of the Act, he can only file a Public Interest Litigation. It is also stated that the writ petition before this Court is not maintainable.?
?13.According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the petitioner is neither aggrieved by the issue nor he is a person interested. Whether he is aggrieved or not depends on the merits of the matter and it will be dealt with separately. It is relevant to find out, as to whether he is a person interested. Section 6(15) of the Act defines the term person having interest. Under the said provision, the person having interest in respect of a math, temple and endowment has been separately defined. In respect of the term person having interest regarding Temple the same has been dealt with under Section 6(15)(b), which is as follows:
? 6(15)(b). in the case of a temple, a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple, or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat?
Therefore, an analysis shows that even a person who is entitled to attend or partake in the temple services is a person having interest, whether he actually exercises his entitlement or not. Being a Hindu, as stated in the affidavit, a believer of Hindu Temples, the petitioner is certainly a person entitled to worship in the temple, and therefore, the contention raised in the counter affidavit by the respondents as if the petitioner is not in the habit of visiting the present temple, viz., Arulmigu Madanagoapalaswamy Thirukoil, has little significance while considering the definition of ?person having interest".
In the present case, it is the specific plea of the petitioner that he is an ardent saivite and devout disciple of the fifth respondent mutt and he has been continuously agitating the appointment of the eighth respondent. He is definitely a person having interest as contemplated under Section 6(15) of the Act and hence, the writ petition is held to be maintainable.
24. As the eighth respondent has admitted and filed an affidavit that he is not the 293rd pontiff, he is not entitled to claim any right as such. Further, as his appointment has been revoked and pending adjudication before the Civil Court, he has no right to enter into the mutt or any temple under the mutt either as a Junior Pontiff or 293rd Pontiff.
25. Thus, for the reasons stated above, this Court has no hesitation to allow this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
26. Before parting with this, this Court is of the view that the administration of Various mutts is subject to the control of the 2nd respondent under the HR & CE Act, without interference with the religious functions and activities of the mutt. Though the right of the pontiff in appointing his successor cannot be ordinarily challenged, as it is a fundamental right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be said with regard to the appointee, as such appointment can be revoked, under certain circumstances, like failure to follow the procedure under the scheme or practices followed by the mutt and for any of the reasons stated in Section 59 of the HR & CE Act. It also means that if a person, who is likely to bring disrepute to the mutt because of any of his traits or practices not in line with the procedures and philosophies of the mutt, is appointed, he can be removed or his appointment can be revoked by the Pontiff himself. It is the duty of the 2nd respondent to ensure that the properties of all the religious endowments are under protection. The definition of ?religious endowment? under Section 6(17) and ?religious institution? under Section 6(18) also include the Maths. The country is mounting will self proclaimed godmen like the eighth respondent, who claim to be spiritual gurus initially and later proclaim themselves to be god and in the process end up amassing wealth and abusing innocent and vulnerable children and women. Therefore, under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions;
(a) The eight respondent shall not enter into the mutt or any temple under the mutt either as a Junior Pontiff or 293rd Pontiff and any such attempt would be violative of the order of the Division Bench in WP.Nos.12915 and 26567 of 2012 and WP (MD)No.8260 of 2012 dated 31.10.2012 as well as the order of this Court in CRP(MD).No.1288 of 2013 dated 19.08.2014, which attained finality.
(b) The 2nd respondent shall ensure that the eight respondent is not permitted to enter into the fifth respondent mutt for whatsoever reasons, pending disposal of the civil suits and for that purpose, direct that appropriate action be taken and if necessary, seek police action;
(c) In case of any difficulty in performing the daily Pooja or administration of the mutt, due to the ill-health of the sixth respondent, in the absence of the seventh respondent, the 2nd respondent shall instruct the appropriate Assistant Commissioner to take such action as necessary under Section 60 of the Act, to protect the interest of the mutt;
(d) The second respondent shall collect the schemes and procedures of various mutts in the State in the appointment of successors and the properties vested with them, within a period of eight weeks and submit the same before this Court;
(e) The second respondent shall take steps to nullify any similar trust deeds executed by any madathipathis as in this case whereby, under the guise of trust, the administration of the entire properties of the trust are vested with third parties by subverting the provisions of HR & CE Act;
(f) In cases, where any spiritual head acts in such a way to bring disrepute to the math or ashram, which he is heading, appropriate action shall be initiated under Section 53 or 59 of the HR & CE Act as the case may be.
Post after eight weeks for reporting compliance.
To
1.The Chief Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 119, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai ? 600 034.
3.The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Madurai ? 1.
4.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
.