You are on page 1of 4

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 its 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 wasnt
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 DIKSHITHARs (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 Commissioners ordered to appointed executive officer
1987 order upheld by court
1995 state government approved commissioners 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 governments 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-inchidambaram.html?m=1

You might also like