Apex court ruling fair and wise, constitutionally

Considering this basic dilemma, which circumscribes the secular and non-secular orders, plays out at various levels with no clear roots, the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on appointment of ‘Archakas’ (officiating priests) in temples in Tamil Nadu, is a sagely acknowledgement of the perils of treading this difficult terrain.

The apex court Judges, Justice J Ranjan Gogoi (who wrote the judgment) and Justice N V Ramana, in deciding on the writ petitions, by an association of ‘Archakas’ and individual ‘Archakas’ of Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple- a shrine that was the very locus of the historic temple entry movement when late Vaidyanatha Iyer led the Dalits into it in July 1939-, challenging the July 2006 G.O. of the previous DMK government allowing for “any person who is a Hindu and possessing the requisite qualification and training (in the Agamas) can be appointed as a Archaka in Hindu temples”, have basically reiterated the primacy of the ‘Agamas’ in shaping the structure and content of temple worship practices.

Given precedents are part of the judicial decisional process, it is only natural that the two Judges’ normative benchmark in this case has been the apex court’s Constitution bench judgment in the famous ‘Seshammal and others Vs State of Tamil Nadu’ case in the early 1970s’.

When the then amendment to the 1959 Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Act that abolished the hereditary succession principle “in filling up office holders or servants of a religious institution”, was challenged, the apex court upheld the abolition. However, it affirmed that appointment of office bearers or servants of the temple were to be made from a “particular denomination/group/sect”, as enjoined by the ‘Agamas’. As the court then and now underscored, the ‘Agamas’ “are treatises pertaining to matters like construction of temples, installation of idols and conduct of worship of the Deity.”

A brief note on the ‘Agamas’ may be in place here. As several scholars have pointed out, it has the status of a ‘scripture’, believed to have been directly revealed by the Gods (Lord Shiva in the case of the 28 Shaiva Agamas) to ‘rishis’ or intuitive souls who in turn initiate their followers/students into its insights and rituals/practices that sustain them in a long line of succession. Two other key sects, worshippers of Lord Vishnu and goddess Shakti have their own ‘Agamas’.

The ‘Agamas’ are also known as ‘Tantras’, though scholars differ on whether they are entirely a non-Vedic corpus, or a mix of the Vedic and the non-Vedic traditions. The temples became the matrix of their operations since the medieval period and successive Acharyas- most famous of them being Sri Ramanuja- have improvised, in tune with their respective metaphysical positions, on the extent to which the ‘tantric’ and ‘mantra’ portions could jell in a live tradition of worship.

Hinduism’s sister religions, like Buddhism and Jainism also have their separate ‘Agamas’, wherein some form of a Deity (like the Buddha deified in Mahayana Buddhism sect and in Svetambara sect in Jainism) is worshipped. The original rationale was that in the modern age, where people have no time and religion has a mere instrumental use, temple worship as enjoined by ‘Agamas’ is said to be the easiest way for people to realize the highest truth of unity spoken by the ‘Vedas’.

Given this overbearing backdrop, Justice Gogoi has blended with aplomb legal fairness and philosophical profundity. If the ‘Agamic’ prescriptions, including appointment of ‘Archakas’ are part of the ‘core’ religious beliefs needed for their survival, to that extent they have a supervening character as laid down in the ‘Seshammal’ case. In the same breath, any custom or usage could not violate ‘constitutionally unacceptable parameters (like discrimination based on caste)’.

The basic issue, as the Judges pointed out in their 54-page order, is not about the clarity of ‘constitutional values’ like equality before the Law. It is how to “determine whether a claim of state action” in public interest or social reform (in this case making all qualified Hindus eligible to become priests in temples to do pujas in the sanctum sanctorum and not confine it to one particular group/caste) overrides Constitutional guarantees under Articles 25 and 26 (provisions related to internal freedoms religious institutions can exercise in upholding their faith).

While the Judges did not consider it necessary to decide on the validity per se of the Tamil Nadu government’s 2006 G.O., partly because it was not incorporated in the amending Bill that later came into force, on the basic issue the apex court also admirably admitted the limitations. They related to how far the court can go into ecclesiastical matters that is not their cup of tea, and also, “the declining numbers of acknowledged and undisputed scholars on the subject (Agamas).”

The broad signal being that progressive, reformist impulses in religious traditions have to come from within traditions — as shown by modern visionaries like Swami Vivekananda, Ramalinga Swami, Mahatma Gandhi and Tagore — not pushed by state-fiats from above. Thus in sum, the apex court’ ruling in the Archakas appointments case is both constitutionally fair and wise.