Seshammal v State of Tamil Nadu (Supreme Court, 1972) — the archaka's appointment is secular

It is the standard illustration of the line Article 25(2)(a) draws between the secular activity associated with religion and religious practice itself, and the first in the series that runs through Adithayan to Sabarimala.

Twelve petitions under Article 32 were filed by hereditary archakas and mathadhipatis of ancient Saivite and Vaishnavite temples in Tamil Nadu challenging the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1970. The principal Act of 1959 had recognised the hereditary succession to the office of archaka; the Amendment Act deleted the words recognising hereditary offices from sections 55 and 56, so that the trustee was no longer bound to appoint the next in the line of succession, and empowered the Government under section 116(2)(xxiii) to prescribe the qualifications of archakas. The petitioners said the Act violated their freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26, since the Agamas prescribe who may perform worship in a consecrated temple, and feared that the Government would prescribe qualifications ignoring the Agamas. The Bench was Sikri C.J., Grover, Ray, Palekar and Beg JJ.; Palekar J. delivered the judgment.

1. Is the appointment of an archaka a religious practice protected by Articles 25 and 26, or a secular act the State may regulate?
2. Does the power to prescribe qualifications threaten the Agamic rituals?

Appointment is secular. The trustee exercises "essentially a secular function in choosing and appointing the Archaka. That the son of an Archaka or the son’s son has been continued in the office from generation to generation does not make any difference to the principle of appointment and no such hereditary Archaka can claim any right to the office. Thus the appointment of an Archaka is a secular act and the fact that in some temples the hereditary principle was followed in making the appointment would not make the successive appointments anything but secular." That after his appointment the archaka performs worship is no ground for treating the appointment as a matter of religion. The amended section 55 only released the trustee from the obligation to appoint the next in line; the Amendment Act "as a whole must be regarded as valid."

The rituals remain protected. The petitioners' apprehension that the Government would prescribe a standardised curriculum ignoring the Agamas was "unfounded": Rule 12, requiring fitness certified by an institution teaching the Agamas, "still holds the field and there is no good reason to think that the State Government wants to revolutionize temple worship by introducing methods of worship not current in the several temples." The rule-making power under section 116 is "only intended with a view to carry out the purposes of the Act which are essentially secular", and section 107 of the principal Act preserves the rights of denominations under Article 26.

Who is appointed archaka is a secular matter the State may regulate under Article 25(2)(a), so the hereditary principle may be abolished; how worship is performed in a consecrated temple, as the Agamas prescribe, is a matter of religion that Articles 25 and 26 protect and that the Act does not touch.