Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)
Muthu Subramania Gurukkal vs The Commissioner on 18 January, 2018 cites

K. Seshadri Aiyangar And Two Ors. vs Ranga Bhattar on 7 April, 1911

In K. Seshadii Aiyangar v. Ranga Bhattar [I.L.R. 35 Mad. 631], the Madras High court had held that status of hereditary archaka of a temple is that of a servant, subject to the disciplinary power of the trustee who would enquire into his conduct as servant and would be entitled to take disciplinary action against him for misconduct. As a servant, archaka is subject to the discipline and control of the trustee. The ratio therein was applied and upheld by this Court and it was held that under Section 56 of the Madras Act archaka is the holder of an office attached to a religious institution and he receives emoluments and perks according to the procedure therein. This court had further held that the act of his appointment is essentially a secular act. He owes his appointment to a secular authority. Any lay founder of a temple may appoint an archaka. The Shebait or Manager of temple exercises essentially a secular function in choosing and appointing the archaka. Continuance of an archaka by succession to the office from generation to generation does not make any difference to the principle of appointment. No such 29/46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3997 of 2018 hereditary archaka can claim any right to the office. Though after appointment the archaka performs worship, it is no ground to hold that the appointment is either religious practice or a matter of religion. It would thus be clear that though archaka is normally a well- versed and accomplished person in the Agamas and rituals necessary to be performed in a temple, he is the holder of an office in the temple. He is subject to the disciplinary power of a trustee or an appropriate authority prescribed in the regulations or rule or the Act. He owes his existence to an order of appointment - be it in writing or otherwise. He is subject to the discipline on a par with other members of the establishment. Though after appointment, as an integral part of the daily rituals, he performs worship in accordance with Agamas Sastras, it is no ground to hold that this appointment is either a religious practice or a matter of religion. It is not an essential part of religion or matter of religion or religious practice. Therefore, abolition of the hereditary right to appointment under Section 34 is not violative of either Article 25(1) or 26(b) of the Constitution."
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 27 - Full Document
1   2 Next