Temple honours not an absolute right, deity has first claim: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that special honours in a temple cannot be claimed as an absolute right and said that the “first honour” in any temple is always to the presiding deity.

A bench of Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan dismissed an appeal filed by Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam and ruled that while certain practices of honouring heads of mutts may exist, such practices cannot be elevated to the status of an absolute legal right.

“These kind of special honours can never be demanded, as it cannot be construed as an absolute right. The first honour is always to the deities in the Temple and honouring Heads of Mutts, though being followed as a practice, is an issue to be decided by the competent authority under the Act,” said the bench on December 15.

The case is related to a long-standing dispute over “special honours” or Pancha Mudhirai Mariyadhai at the Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple, Kanchipuram.

The original writ petition was filed by Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha, seeking a direction to restrain authorities concerned to enforce Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act, 1959 from interfering with established religious customs and usages of the temple.

A single judge bench of the high court had earlier recorded the submission of the advocate general that, according to the traditional practice, such honours were confined to five mutts- Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam (Sankara Mutt, Kanchipuram), Sri Ahobila Mutt, Sri Vanamamalai Mutt (Nangunery), Sri Parakala Jeeyar Mutt (Mysore), and Sri Vyasarayar Mutt (Sosale, Udupi) and that any extension of honours beyond these would be open to challenge.

The present writ appeal was filed by Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam, a third party to the original proceedings, contending that the practice of conferring honours on its head had been followed on several occasions after 1991 but was later discontinued without granting it an opportunity of hearing.

Senior advocate M S Krishnan, appearing for the appellant ashramam, argued that the head of the mutt had been accorded special honours in the temple from the early 1990s and that the single bench order dated February 8, 2023 resulted in discontinuance of this practice.

He contended that since the appellant was not impleaded in the original writ petition, it was denied the opportunity to defend its customary rights.

Advocate NRR Arun Natarajan, appearing for the HR&CE department submitted that according to the established customs and a communication dated September 5, 1991, special honours at the temple were being conferred only on the five recognised mutts.

He said that the department maintained that any deviation from this long-standing practice would require a formal determination under the HR&CE Act.

Rejecting the appeal, the bench made it clear that special honours in a temple cannot be demanded as a matter of right.

Acknowledging that honouring heads of mutts may have been followed as a practice in certain instances, the court emphasised that whether such honours could be claimed as a right must be decided by the competent authority under the HR&CE Act, particularly under Section 63(e).

The said section empowers the commissioner/joint commissioner/deputy commissioner to inquire and decide if a person is entitled to an honor, emolument, or perquisite (like a traditional right or privilege) in a Hindu religious institution.

Taking note that the HR&CE department itself did not dispute that the appellant mutt head had been conferred honours on five occasions after 1991, the bench clarified that this fact alone did not confer a legally enforceable right.

Granting limited relief, the court held that the appellant was at liberty to approach the competent authority under Section 63(e) of the Act for redressal of its grievance.

Finding no infirmity in the single judge’s order, the bench dismissed the writ appeal and declined to entertain the challenge.