In a significant ruling that clarifies religious protocol in Tamil Nadu's temples, the Madras High Court has asserted that the primary honour within a temple must always be reserved for its deities. The court stated that special honours accorded to heads of monastic institutions, while sometimes practiced, cannot be claimed as an absolute right.
Court's Verdict on Temple Protocol
A division bench comprising Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan delivered this observation while hearing a plea from the Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam. The mutt had sought a directive for the Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple in Kanchipuram to continue providing a specific honour known as 'Pancha Mudhirai Mariyadhai' to its head, a practice reportedly followed since 1992.
The bench firmly expressed that such special honours can never be demanded as a matter of right. "The first honour is always to the deities in the temple," the court declared. It further clarified that honouring mutt heads, even if followed as a tradition, is a matter that falls under the purview of the competent authority governed by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE) Act of 1959.
Legal Pathway for Resolution
The court acknowledged that the HR and CE Department did not dispute that the honour in question had been conferred upon the head of the appellant mutt on five separate occasions after 1991. However, the legal bench emphasized that the crucial question of whether this practice can be claimed as a rightful entitlement must be determined strictly under the provisions of the Act.
The judges specifically referred to Section 63(e) of the HR and CE Act, which deals with the powers of the commissioner and other authorities. Instead of issuing a direct order to the temple, the High Court disposed of the plea. It granted liberty to the mutt to approach the competent authority or the Joint Commissioner of the HR and CE Department to seek any relief regarding the continuation of the honour.
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling reinforces the administrative framework established by the HR and CE Act for managing temple affairs and rituals. It underscores a legal principle that customary practices, especially those involving privileges and honours, are subject to regulatory scrutiny and are not inherently indefeasible rights. The decision prioritizes the sanctity of worship directed at the deities while channeling disputes over ancillary honours through the designated statutory authorities.
The judgment sets a precedent that balances religious tradition with structured governance, ensuring that temple protocols are administered within the legal framework set by the state legislature.
