The answear is emphatic NO
Here is the legal tangle
EO takes over Chidambaram temple
by K.T. Sangameswaran and S. Vydhianathan
CHENNAI: The decks have been cleared for the government management and administration of the Lord Nataraja temple at Chidambaram with the Madras High Court on Monday dismissing a writ petition filed by the Podhu Dikshitars challenging the State government’s appointment of an Executive Officer (EO) for the temple.
In her order, Justice R.Banumathi said the HR and CE Commissioner should issue proper directions to the Executive Officer to administer the temple in accordance with the provisions of the HR and CE Act within a week. The Podhu Dikshitars should extend all cooperation to the EO for the proper administration of the temple. The court also permitted U.Arumugasamy, an impleading petitioner, to recite ‘Thevaram’ and ‘Thiruvachagam’ inside the temple. Sri Sabanayagar Temple, represented by its Secretary of Podhu Dikshitars, Chidambaram, challenged an order dated July 31, 1987 of the HR and CE Commissioner appointing an Executive Officer for the temple under section 45 (1) of the HR and CE Act.
The petitioner contended that it was a religious denomination and it had been maintaining the temple for centuries. The appointment of an EO was an interference with the religious affairs and violated the Constitution. It was not a public temple. It enjoyed complete autonomy in the matter of deciding rights, ceremonies and administration of temple properties. The government submitted that the EO was appointed following various allegations against Podhu Dikshitars, who allegedly indulged in several malpractices.
Ms.Justice Banumathi said in the light of well settled principles, if the instant case was examined, the Dikshitars could claim protection only under Article 25 of the Constitution. But the right to manage the temple or the offerings or ‘kattalais’ were not the integral part of religion or religious practice and as such were amenable to statutory control. The appointment of the EO was not ultra vires of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
HR and CE Special Commissioner and Commissioner T.Pitchandi told The Hindu that the EO, would start functioning with immediate effect following the High Court order. Earlier, the Podhu Dikshitars challenged the EO’s appointment and obtained a stay. In view of the stay, the officer was looking after only the property outside the temple precincts. With the vacation of the stay, he would take over the temple management, including the Dikshitars’ welfare.
Appeal filed in Chidambaram Nataraja temple case
Special Correspondent
CHENNAI: The Sabanayagar temple at Chidambaram, popularly known as the Nataraja temple, has preferred an appeal against a single Judge order dismissing a petition filed by Podhu Dikshitars challenging the State government’s appointment of an Executive Officer for the temple.
The temple, represented by the secretary of Podhu Dikshitars, submitted that the Judge failed to see that the protection under Article 26 would be available to a denomination if, on the date of coming into the force of the Constitution, it had the right of administration of the temple.
The Judge had failed to see that the impugned order of the HR and CE Commissioner proceeded on the premise that the Podhu Dikshitars as a denomination was in management of the temple, but, nevertheless, the HR and CE Department had powers to appoint an Executive Officer as such a power was granted under section 45 of the HR and CE Act.
The Judge had erred in observing that the income from the offerings had not been accounted for properly.
The appeal said the conclusion that Supreme Court decisions had laid down that secular activities of the temple could be controlled by the legislature was also beside the point.
It prayed the court to set aside the single Judge’s order of February 2.
A team of Dikshithars on Thursday met AIADMK general secretary Jayalalithaa.
If you want to know more about this issue read
Comments
Add a comment