SRI SABHANAYAGAR TEMPLE CASE

HISTORY

Temple situated in cuddalore district of Tamilnadu. It is one of the ancient temple in India and the only ancient temple existing in Tamilnadu.

Exact period of construction of the temple is not known but it belongs to Sangam period. The temple in present form construction belongs to 11th, 12th & 13th centuries with the contribution of Pallava, chola, pandhya, vijayanagara and chera royals.

Main god is lord Shiva. It was built where shaivite found the centre of the universe. Geographically it’s the largest temple in India with total surface area of 35 acres. The forest that surrounds the temple, called tillai (botanically Exocoeria agallocha), is

the second largest mangrove forest in the world.

ISSUE

Issue over the administration of the temple between state government of Tamilnadu and podhu dikshithars [temple priests].

LAWS THAT FAVOURS STATE GOVERNMENT

Section 45 of Hindu religious and charitable endowment act

o Empowers government to appoint executive officer to take charge of the

temple and its properties.

1965 amendment of the Hindu religious and charitable act

o Empowers government to take over temple administrations on grounds of

mismanagement even if there is no evidence.

LAWS THAT FAVOURS PODHU DIKSHITHARS

Article 26 of Indian constitution

o Freedom to manage religious affairs

o To establish and manage institutions for religious and charitable purposes

(26a), to administer such property in accordance with law (26d)

Section 107 of Hindu religious and charitable act

o Bars any act on institutions that was protected under article 26 of Indian

constitution.

HOW STATE GOVERNMENT DEFENDED ITS ACTION

The only point the state government has was the financial mismanagement by podhu dikshithars. Thus it makes the route for the state government to use section 45 of the Hindu religious and charitable endowment act.

Arguing that podhu dikshithars are not subjected under religious denominations. (Since religious denominations has not been defined anywhere in the constitution of India and in Hindu religious and charitable endowment act).

Since exact origin of the temple was not known, the state government claimed administration by insisting PD was not the founder of the temple. And there wasn’t any written document for PD to claim that they were the founder of the temple.

As temple is not the private property, the government has every right of undertaking its control and administration on grounds of allegations.

HOW STATE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED LAWS

By undertaking temple properties for a limitless period , state government ultra vires Article 31A 1(b),

“The taking over of the management of any property by the State for a limited period either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of the property”

The HR & CE act section 64 (4) has the limitation of 5 years periods, but its amendment in 1959 replaces section 64 (4) by section 72 which deleted period limitation. Thus it ultra vires Article 31 A 1(b).

Since the state government has to pay salary for those officers appointed to administer temple from state funds which is in turn is a collection of taxes from citizens, it ultra vires or violates Article 27,

“no person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of particular religion or religious denomination”

It is argued that those salaries are paid from state funds, indirectly compelling the citizens to pay tax for the promotion or management of particular religion.

By taking control over temple administration, state government violated section 107 of HR & CE act which

“bars any act on institutions that was protected under article 26 of Indian constitution”

Thus it violated section 107 and article 26.

HOW PODHU DIKSHITHAR’s (PD) DEFENDED THEIR DEMAND

Proved that podhu dikshithars are religious denominations.

In 1951, shirur mutt case, religious denominations was defined as “a collection of individuals classed together under the same name: a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization and designated by a distinctive name”. It was clearly said that podhu dikshitars belonging to smartha Brahmins are religious denomination or in any event a section thereof.

It attracts article 26.

Justified that sri sabhanayagar temple [Nataraja temple] was founded by podhu dikshithars.

In 1946, the President of the Board, Mr. T.M.Chinnaiya Pillai, said that podhu dikshithars are hereditary trustees of the temple and the temple came into existence because of the efforts of their ancestors.

No other group in Chidambaram or elsewhere laid claim to the temple.

It again attracts article 26.

Thus being protected under article 26 of Indian constitution, it brings in section 107 against section 45 of HR & CE act in favour of podhu dikshithars.

CHRONOLOGY

1817 East India Company took the administration of most of the temples in India under regulation act. {later Chidambaram temple exempted from the purview of Hindu religious endowment bill of 1891}

1849 The temple constitution was framed for the first time by temple responsibilities.

1925 government passed Hindu religious endowment act of 1923 for the better administration of the temple.

1925 podhu dikshithars gets exempted from Hindu religious endowment act 1925 by appealing to Governor-in-council.

1927 Hindu religious endowment act of 1923 was repealed. 1951 executive officer appointment by madras government was challenged by

podhu dikshithars which claimed religious denomination under Article 26 of Indian constitution. Judgement declared podhu dikshithars are religious denominations protected under article 26 of Indian constitution. [shirr mutt case]

1953 madras government appealed in supreme court but later withdrawn it. 1971 hereditary rights of priest was abolished 1982 Commissioner’s ordered to appointed executive officer 1987 order upheld by court 1995 state government approved commissioner’s order

1997 dikshithars writ petition against appointment notification was dismissed in feb 2006 government office notification 168 issued to take over temple administration.

Podhu dikshithars challenged it by writ petition and it was dismissed by single judge. 2009 podhu dikshitars challenged in DB of MHC as writ appellate. Again WA was

dismissed by Divisional Bench of MHC 2009 appointment of executive officer upheld, overturned 1952 judgement. 2009 podhu dikshithars appealed in supreme court 2010 interim order by supreme court over the control of temple by HR & CE

department 2014 supreme court declares temple administration vests with podhu dikshithars and

protected under article 26 of Indian constitution.

CONCLUSION

This case was ended as res judicata i.e., matter is already settled in court and cannot be raised again.

The landmark judgement of this case sparked the release of all the temples under respective state government’s control.

The main point is, none of the state government was interested in monitoring other religion temples except Hindu temples, raising a one sided question that government is looking steal the wealth of the Hindu temples.

If all the religious worship place follows the same method of worshipping and open to all the citizens of the nation, the word secular in the preamble of Indian constitution was somewhat justified.

MY DETAILS

YUVARAJ KANDASAMY

REFERENCES

The Hindu newspaper http://www.unesco.org/most/rr3indi.htm http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/11/nataraja-temple-case-in-

chidambaram.html?m=1