Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu

FACTS

The State Legislature of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Principal Act), which was later amended in 1970 (the Amendment Act). The Amendment Act was enacted as a step towards social reform on the recommendation of the Committee on Untouchability, Economic and Educational Development of the Scheduled Castes. The key changes were made to Sections 55, 56, and 116 of the Principal Act, making certain hereditary religious offices non-hereditary and prescribing requisite educational qualifications for them, irrespective of caste, creed or race.

ISSUE

The issue pertaining to the current case reflected whether the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1970 violated the Archaka’s freedom of religion secured to them under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

• Reiterating Principles of Articles 25 & 26: The court reiterated that the protection of Articles 25 and 26 extends not only to matters of doctrine and belief but also to acts done in pursuance of religion, including rituals, observances, ceremonies, and modes of worship considered to be the integral and essential part of the religion.

• Validity of the Amendment Act:

  • The Amendment Act, which made the Archaka post non-hereditary and prescribed qualifications, was challenged. It was contended that a trustee could now appoint a person as Archaka irrespective of his being a Saivite or Vaishnavite, violating the freedom of religion of the religious denominations guaranteed by Article 26.

  • The Supreme Court did not accept this contention and upheld the validity of the Act.

  • The Court reasoned that the new law did not completely secularize the religious office. The trustee would still be bound to follow the terms of the trust or the usage of the institution in making appointments. This safeguard ensures that purely religious offices are not filled up by persons disqualified by the terms of the trust or the usage of the institution (e.g., a person of one sect could not be appointed Archaka of another sect).

• Nature of Archaka's Position: The court referred to the position of the Archaka as that of a servant subject to the disciplinary power of the trustee, a position previously established in K. Seshadri Aiyangar v. Ranga Bhattar. This reinforced the view that the administrative control over the service is largely a secular aspect, which the State is competent to regulate under the proviso to Article 26(b).

CASE LAWS REFERRED

• Sardar Syedna Taker Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay: Affirmed that Articles 25 and 26 protect not just doctrine and belief, but also rituals and ceremonies which are integral parts of religion. What constitutes an essential part is decided by the courts with reference to the doctrine of the particular religion.

• K. Seshadri Aiyangar v. Ranga Bhattar: Held that the hereditary Archaka is a servant subject to the disciplinary power and control of the trustee.

{pg 247, 259, Constitution of India, VN Sukla, 14th ed}