Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The priest preserves the image from pollution, defilement or desecration. By performing rituals, rites and reciting hymns he makes Lord present in definable and describable way and Vishnu manifests in the hearts of the devotees. It is the religious belief of Hindu worshippers that when the image is polluted or defiled, the divine spirit in the image is diminished or even vanished. According to the Agamas, an image becomes defiled if there is any departure or violation of any of the rules relating to worship. It would then become necessary to perform purificatory ceremonies to restore the sanctity of the shrine. The performance of rituals thus plays a great role to sustain the faith of the layman in the Deity. Therefore, the Agama rules are part of Hindu religious faith. Any departure from the traditional rules of worship would result in pollution.

Only qualified archaka is entitled to step inside the sanctum sanctorum (Garbhagriha) after observing daily discipline imposed upon him by the Agamas. It is his sole duty to perform daily rituals and ceremonies according to Agama prescriptions touching the Deity. Touch of the image of the Deity by any other person would defile the idol. Therefore, the Agama assigns that duty to the archaka alone as part of religious practice. He performs Archana and other services on behalf of the "Severities" or worshippers. The services of archaka, therefore, are integrally and inseparably connected with the performance of daily rituals in pooja (worship) to the Deity.

It is next contended that as per rules laid down in Agmas, the archaka of particular denomination alone is entitled to enter sanctum sanctorum and touch the image of God. A touch by a person of different denomination defiles the image of God. Therefore, persons belonging to that particular family, sect or denomination alone are entitled to perform pooja or ceremonial rituals of daily worship and that the abolition of hereditary right amounts to interference with the religion offending Article 25(1). Ex- facie the argument being attractive, we had put a pointed question to Shri Parasaran that when with the advancement of education and the liberty of a person to pursue liberal higher education of his choice to improve his excellence, persons born in a particular sect or denomination acquire liberal education and migrate, as is usual, to a foreign country and settle themselves in profitable avocation, and no other person from that particular family, sect/sub-sect or denomination having knowledge, proficiency and accomplishment is available, what would happen to the preference of rituals in that particular temple. The counsel, after due consideration, was frank to submit that in that eventuality the management of the institution has to seek a suitable person from outside the family, sect/sub- sect or denomination. With increased modern facilities for liberal higher education and learning and ample opportunities to improve excellence to seek advantageous avocation, a child in traditional Vedic family may not fall in line with father to practise his archakatwam, avocation or services and no one can compel him to do so. Therefore, what would be relevant is not that the candidate who seeks to serve as an archaka must be from that family etc., but must be an accomplished person in Agama rules having faith and devotion in that form of worship and also proficiency to perform rituals and rites, ceremonial rituals appropriate to the temple according to its customs, usages, Sampradayams etc. In other words, the faith and belief in the religion, customs, usages or Sampradayams in that particular Agamas and proficiency in performance of the rituals to the image of God in those particular rituals are conditions precedent to be eligible to hold office of the archaka. One who fulfils those pre-conditions is eligible to be considered and appointed to the office of archaka or other similar offices. The regulation of this secular activity, therefore, does not offend any faith or belief in the performance of those duties by a person other than one hailing from the family, sect/sub-sect or denomination hither to performing the same. Earlier, the field of choice to appoint a particular archaka was confined and limited to that family, sect/sub-sect or denomination, but after the statutory regulation the field of choice is widened and all eligible candidates including those available from the family etc. will be considered; competency is tested and when one is found qualified, appointment is made to the office of archaka according to the prescribed procedure. We, therefore, hold that abolition of hereditary principle under Section 34 is not violative of either Article 25(1) or 26(b) of the Constitution.

36. Therefore, the authority would have no difficulty in adjudging whather a candidate is free from seven voices or any of them. If there is any error of judgment or denial of appointment on that basis in any individual case that would be a matter for consideration in an appropriate forum. The provisions, therefore, are not arbitrary, unjust or unfair.

Yet another serious contention of Sri Parasaran is that the power of transfer under Section 39 is within the grinding teeth of Article 25 (1) of the Constitution. It is his contention that each temple has its own rules laid down by Agamas, practices and customs prevalent in that temple; archakas will have special knowledge of working in the temple; an archaka transferred to another temple or transferee-substitute bereft of that knowledge inthe performance of rituals defile the image of the presiding Deity, leading to serious repercussions and, therefore, Section 39 is ultra vires the Constitution. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that Sections 13 and 142, which have already been adverted to, would take care of the apprehended catastrophe. On mere apprehension, Section 39 cannot be declared to be ultra vires. If in any individual case any transfer was effected of a person who had no accomplishment of Agamic rules, customs, practices or sampradayams applicable to that particular temple, it would be considered and dealt with accordingly. It cannot be expected that the Commissioner would act in violation thereof and would act in a way inconsistent with Sections 13 and 142. Each case would be considered on its own merits and correctness of such transfer would be tested in an appropriate proceedings. Therefore, on that score alone, Section 39 cannot be declared arbitrary or ultra vires or unjust.