Latest news with #Agamic
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
How a high-level panel laid the blueprint for inclusive Archaka appointments to Tamil Nadu's HR&CE temples
Nearly 55 years ago, on December 2, 1970, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed a historic amendment to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act, 1959, formally abolishing the hereditary priesthood system and opening the doors for qualified individuals from all castes to become temple priests. However, the intent of this reform was not fully realised due to the absence of a clear framework and persistent legal challenges. Although the amended provisions came into effect the following year, no enabling mechanism was put in place to ensure the appointment of trained Archakas (temple priests). The matter continued to face judicial scrutiny until the Supreme Court, in its 2002 ruling in the N. Adithayan vs Travancore Devaswom Board case, held that caste-based restrictions on the appointment of Archakas were unconstitutional, emphasising that only qualification and training should determine eligibility. On May 23, 2006, soon after the M. Karunanidhi government was formed in Tamil Nadu, it chose to act on this Supreme Court order. The government issued an order allowing any Hindu, regardless of caste, to become an Archaka in temples administered by the HR&CE department, provided they had the required training. To implement this order, it constituted a seven-member high-level committee on June 10, 2006, under the chairmanship of Justice (Retired) A.K. Rajan. The committee was tasked with framing recommendations regarding the age and education criteria, syllabus design, training duration, and suitable locations for setting up Archaka training institutes. Course of action The committee undertook an extensive consultative process. It held regular meetings, engaged with heads of various Mutts and Agama scholars, and studied the functioning of private training centres. Field visits to major temples were conducted to interact with practising Archakas and gather insights. The committee also reviewed the legal provisions governing Archaka appointments. It noted that while the HR&CE Act, 1959, does not lay down specific qualifications for the post, Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules provides guidance for such appointments. The committee also referred to a series of Supreme Court judgments, including the Seshammal case (1972), Narayana Dikshitalu case (1996), and Adithayan case (2002), that affirmed the primacy of Agamic rules in temples constructed or maintained according to Agamic traditions. The committee extensively examined various Agamas and observed in its review that nowhere in the Agamas, it is stated that only persons of a particular caste can perform pujas. There is no authority supporting caste-based restrictions on who can serve as Archakas in Saivite, Vaishnavite, or Amman temples. Pointing out that a particular caste or descendants of a particular caste had been performing pujas in the past, it cannot be said that they alone have the right to perform pujas, the committee observed, adding the essential qualification for an Archaka is knowledge of Agama practices specific to the temple, the correct method of performing rituals (including daily and special poojas), and mastery of the required mantras. Eligibility criteria Proficiency in temple procedures, from opening to closing, is considered the core eligibility criterion. However, the committee observed that denominational alignment remains necessary. It said only Saivites should serve in Saivite temples and Vaishnavites in Vaishnavite temples. The committee laid down elaborate eligibility criteria for Hindus from all castes to be appointed as Archakas. It suggested that candidates seeking admission to Archaka training centres should be between 14 and 24 years of age and have completed Class VIII to serve in HR&CE managed temples. A separate training institute was proposed for individuals above 24 years to facilitate them in undergoing training to serve in temples outside the HR&CE control. They should have completed Class V. The committee recommended establishing Saivite training centres in Chennai, Madurai, Palani, Tiruchendur, Kumbakonam, Thiruvannamalai, and Perur. Vaishnavite centres were proposed for Chennai, Srirangam, Kancheepuram, Alagarkoil (Madurai), and Srivilliputhur. A special centre for trainees above 24 years of age was suggested at Tiruchirapalli. A one-year training course would qualify candidates to serve as basic Archakas in small temples or assistants in larger temples. A more advanced three-year course would be required to perform elaborate rituals and special pujas. Saivite Archakas will be classified as Archaka, Gurukal, and Senior Gurukal, while Vaishnavite Archakas as Bala Pattar, Pattar, and Pattacharyar. Those with one-year training may serve as Archakas/Bala Pattars in small temples or assist in larger temples under senior guidance. Three-year trained individuals may serve as Gurukals/Pattars, handling all rituals under the supervision of senior Archakas. Senior Gurukal/Pattacharyar will be a promotional post, based on experience and seniority. Trainees must maintain strict discipline, including vegetarianism, abstention from alcohol, and wearing simple white attire or a standard uniform during the training period, the committee said. The syllabus proposed by the committee includes training in Agamic procedures, Tamil devotional literature, Grantham, astrology, temple duties, and social values. The curriculum prioritises Tamil as the language of worship and instruction, while ensuring that Sanskrit texts are translated and taught. Training modules would be tailored for one-year, three-year, and refresher courses with a focus on practical ritual performance. Examinations will be conducted annually by the Commissioner for one-year, three-year, and refresher courses, with separate patterns for Saivite and Vaishnavite sections. Certificates and degrees issued will qualify candidates for appointment as Archakas in HR&CE-managed temples, including those from recognised private institutions. Existing Archakas without formal certification need only complete the refresher course to continue service, the committee said. It also insisted that admissions must follow the communal reservation policy of the Tamil Nadu government. To support trainees aged below 24 years, the committee recommended a monthly stipend of ₹500, along with food, uniforms, and accommodation, free of cost. Following the committee's report, between 2007 and 2008, 206 individuals from various castes were trained as priests for major Saivite and Vaishnavite temples. However, the training programme was discontinued after the first batch graduated. Nearly a decade later, T. Marichamy became the first among the trained priests to be appointed by the HR&CE department, taking charge at the Ayyappan Temple in Tallakulam, Madurai.
The Hindu
01-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
SC declines to intervene in spat between Thiruchendur temple Vidhayahar and State government over Kumbhabhishekam time
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in an appeal filed by the Vidhayahar of the famed Thiruchendur Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple alleging that Tamil Nadu Government authorities intervened and 'unilaterally' fixed the Kumbhabhishekam for 6 a.m. on July 7. Disposing of the petition, a Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N. Kotiswar Singh said the court did not have the expertise to decide the 'auspicious time' for the Kumbhabhishekam. The Vidhayahar, R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthirigal, represented by senior advocate K. Parameshwar and advocate Karthik Ashok, said he was the 'sole, exclusive, traditional and customary authority' on the rites of the temple. The State government had defied his decision to conduct the ceremony at 12.05 p.m. 'We cannot decide what is the auspicious time. We could say in future if they should consult with you, form a committee, etc… You claim your decision is binding as far as temple rites are concerned… But the binding nature of your opinion will be decided in the civil court and not in writ jurisdiction here,' Justice Misra told the counsel. Mr. Parameshwar said that, like the court, the State government too did not have a role in fixing the time for the Kumbhabhishekam. 'He is the sole and exclusive traditional and customary authority empowered to advise and fix muhurtham and timings for all religious and spiritual functions of the temple in accordance with Agamic and Vedic principles. According to the Vidhayahar, the only spiritually and astrologically appropriate timing is the Abhijit Muhurtham (12.05 p.m. to 12.45 p.m.), based on ancient texts such as Kala Prahasiha, Kala Vidhanam, and Sarva Mukurtha Chinthamani,' the petition had argued. It submitted that the decision of the Vidyahar was not considered and the Madras High Court had gone with the timing fixed by the Expert Committee for the Kumbhabhishekam. 'The very formation of the Expert Committee is fundamentally flawed and renders the process void of neutrality. Admittedly, three out of five members of the Committee had, even prior to the proceedings, already expressed opinions suggesting a different time than the one recommended by the petitioner. This renders the composition of the Committee biased, prejudicial, and a futile exercise,' the petition had submitted. It had contended that the government's actions were 'nothing but an unwarranted intrusion into the protected religious rights and practice and have directly undermined the Vidhayahar's traditional and legal authority'.
The Hindu
01-07-2025
- General
- The Hindu
Madras High Court permits renovation works at Kancheepuram Devarajaswamy Temple
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (July 1, 2025) permitted renovation works to be carried out inside the Devarajaswamy Temple at Kancheepuram, by Larsen and Toubro (L&T), after the temple management assured to maintain the heritage value as well as aesthetics and not violate the Agama sastras. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh disposed of a writ petition filed by Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha after recording the submissions made by the temple's executive trustee R. Rajalakshmi that the works were being carried only with the concurrence of sthalathars, archakas and sthanigas. Representing the temple management, advocate K.V. Babu told the court that the Devarajaswamy Temple was an ancient institution visited by thousands of devotees every day and hence it required certain changes from time to time to ensure better crowd managment practices. The counsel said, the management had decided to lay a temporary ramp on the pathway leading to the garbagriha (sanctum sanctorum) for the benefit of the elderly and the differently-abled devotees and therefore, it could not be objected to by attaching religious significance to climbing the steps. 'The proposed modification is in accordance with Agamic traditions and for the safety and welfare of the public in general. Since these steps are steep and risky, the alteration has been suggested for the safety of the elderly and differently abled persons,' he said. Similarly, the temple administration had decided to construct another ramp for the benefit of the devotees who throng in large numbers to touch a golden lizard found on the ceiling. Further, a pedestal bridge too had been planned to manage the crowd during peak seasons, he added. Asserting that no sannidhis, deities or mural paintings would be disturbed during the renovation, the counsel said, the Heritage and Archaeological Preservation Committee had also reviewed and approved the renovation plan after being satisfied that no heritage structure would be disturbed. Mr. Babu also informed the court the construction plan submitted by L&T had been examined thoroughly and approved by the Regional Level Empowered Committee as well as the State Level Empowered Committee constituted for the purpose of monitoring changes to ancient temples.
New Indian Express
25-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
No change in Tiruchendur Murugan temple consecration timings: Madras HC
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has refused to interfere with the decision taken by an expert committee appointed by it to fix the time to conduct the consecration of Subramaniya Swamy temple in Tiruchendur. The committee, which consists of five persons who are experts in Agamic principles, had unanimously decided to conduct the ceremony between 6 am and 6.47 am. Disposing of two review applications filed against the order appointing the committee, a bench comprising justices S Srimathy and R Vijayakumar said the consecration would be conducted at the time chosen by the committee. However, the bench directed the temple authorities to henceforth follow the earlier procedure of seeking the opinion of the temple's Vidhayahar-authority responsible for choosing auspicious time for festivals, pujas, important events in temples- through written communication. Also, the judges directed the Vidhayahar to indicate in his reply documents or 'pattolai' whether the document is a draft one or it is the final opinion. The expert committee was appointed following a petition filed by R Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, who is the Vidhayahar of the temple, and the Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil Swathanthira Paribalana Sthalathargal Saba, against 'inauspicious' timing chosen by the authorities.
The Hindu
05-06-2025
- General
- The Hindu
Supreme Court refuses to intervene in Madras High Court order on consecration rites in Tiruchendur temple
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 4, 2025) refused to intervene in a plea against a Madras High Court order constituting a committee to fix the schedule for Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) for Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Tiruchendur, Tamil Nadu. A Bench headed by Justice P. K. Mishra however allowed the petitioner, R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, the Vidhayahar at the temple, to file a review plea against the High Court order. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had directed the constitution of a committee of experts to decide the timing for conducting the consecration ceremony at the temple. The petitioner, in the High Court, had argued that he said he had been the Vidhayahar at the temple for the past 13 years. During temple festivals and other functions he had to fix the timings for their commencement, pujas and celebrations and point out customary and Agamic practices and principles to be adopted according to the nature of the deities and the functions, he had said in the High Court. He had argued in the High Court that the date (July 7) and the timing fixed for the ceremony were not suitable for the event. The petitioner had sought a direction to the authorities to follow the ancient texts and literature and declare the consecration ceremony.
