Periyanambi Narasimha Gopalan vs The Secretary to Government

Court
Madras High Court

WP(MD) No. 30397 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE P.MURUGAN
WP(MD) No. 30397 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011530252026}
AND
WMP(MD) Nos.23204 and 23206 OF 2026
Periyanambi Narasimha Gopalan
S/o. (Late) Periyanambi Srinivasachariyar,
No.1/7, Sannathi Street, Mannarkovil Village,
Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government
Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments
Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Board, No. 119, Uttamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 014
3. The Chairman, Agama Committee,
Office of the Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai
...Respondents
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:53 pm )

WP(MD) No. 30397 of 2026
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to consider the petitioner’s objection dated 17-09-2026 and
reconstitute the Agama Committee by including qualified Agama experts
in Saiva Agamas and Vaishnava Agamas, scholars and Archakas
possessing expertise in the relevant Agamas and consequently to
reconsider the preliminary list classifying temples as Agamic and non-
Agamic temples, by obtaining the assistance of qualified Agama experts
and verifying the relevant temple records, historical documents and
established religious practices before finalising the said list, within the
time fixed by this Hon’ble Court and pass such further or other orders as
this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and
thus render justice
For Petitioner: Mr.N.Vignesh
For Respondents: Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian,
Additional Advocate General,
Asst. by Mr.M.P.Senthil,
Government Pleader
ORDER
The distinction between agamic and non-agamic is fundamental. If
a temple is agamic, the State control is lesser. This binary can sometimes
assume Hamletian overtones. While “ to be or not to be ? ” was an
existential dilemma for the Prince, for the Priest, it is no different.
However, the question of classification of a temple as agamic or non-
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:53 pm )

WP(MD) No. 30397 of 2026
agamic is one of fact. A factual determination must be informed by
fidelity to truth. It cannot be a matter of pure opinion. Any conclusion can
be arrived at only with the assistance of agamic experts. The exercise
must involve an intense scrutiny of various aspects. No determination can
be made by applying a single yardstick.
2. When the Government of Tamil Nadu issued statutory rules
regarding the conditions of service of the employees of the Hindu
Religious Institutions coming under the purview of the HR&CE
Department in the year 2020, they were challenged in a batch of writ
petitions. The focus was more with regard to the appointment of
Archakas in those temples where construction, installation of idols and
worship of deity is as per agamas. The Hon’ble First Bench vide order
dated 22.08.2022 disposed of the writ petitions by directing the State
Government to constitute a Five-Member Committee. The Committee
was tasked with identifying the agamic temples. The identification is
crucial because if the temple is identified as having been constructed as
per a particular agama, the appointment of Archaka would be governed
accordingly. That is why, we remarked at the outset that the distinction
is crucial.
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:53 pm )

WP(MD) No. 30397 of 2026
3. The matter is presently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. There has been some controversy regarding the composition of
the Committee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also given time-lines.
Pursuant to the court directions, the Committee embarked on an elaborate
exercise. It has now submitted a draft list of agamic and non-agamic
temples. The HR&CE Department had also published the same on
25.08.2026. It has been tentatively concluded that the number of agamic
temples is 7,461 while the number of non-agamic temples is 27,510.
4. The writ petitioner is an Archakar of Arulmigu Rajagopala
Kulasekara Alwar Temple. He points out that several temples such as
Arulmigu Sorna Vinayagar Temple, Mattakadai, Arulmigu Swami
Chidambareswarar Temple, Chettiyapathu, Arulmigu Avvai Vinayagar
Temple, Kulasekarapattinam, Arulmigu Padalinga Swamy Temple,
Malaiyangulam and Arulmigu Somasundara Vinayagar Temple, Sattur
which are reputedly agamic temples have been shown as non-agamic.
According to him, what has been presented is only a sample. Hundreds of
agamic temples have thus been wrongly classified as non-agamic. He
would argue that this egregious error has happened for two reasons ; a)
non-association of agamic experts in the process and b) applying a single
yardstick such as performance of poojas. The specific stand of the
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:53 pm )

WP(MD) No. 30397 of 2026
petitioner is that the issue regarding the agamic classification depends not
only on the performance of Poojas but also the construction of temples,
the design of the Sanctum Sanctorum, the installation of deities, Vimanas,
Gopurams, flagstaffs, Bali Peedams, daily worship and festivals. His
specific contention is that no proper conclusion can be reached regarding
the agamic character of a temple without a comprehensive examination of
all the relevant features. His apprehension is that in order to honour the
time-lines stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Committee may
rush forth and finalise the process. During the course of submissions, it
was pointed out that signatures of the priests were obtained after the
Forms were cursorily and erroneously filled. He would insinuate that in a
number of cases, the trustees and other stakeholders were not taken into
confidence. That is why, he has filed this PIL.
5. The petitioner’s credentials cannot be doubted. The cause
undoubtedly partakes the character of a public interest.
6. It is heartening to note that the respondents have not viewed the
matter from an adversarial perspective. The learned Additional Advocate
General submits that what has been published is only a draft list and the
very purpose of publishing such a draft list is to invite objections. Now
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:53 pm )

WP(MD) No. 30397 of 2026
that objections have come, the Committee will go into the same and give
a proper disposal as per law. It is also stated that the advice of agamic
experts concerned will be sought whenever required.
7. Taking into account the larger ramifications involved, we direct
that the stakeholders will have three more weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order to offer their objections. A devotee has a
fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India to insist
that the temple affairs are conducted in consonance with agamic
injunctions. That is why, even if the Form handed out by the Committee
or the department was filled up by the priest, it cannot be taken as binding
or conclusive. The trustee or the devotee can point out that the details
found in the filled-up forms are erroneous. We direct the department to
cause paper publication calling for objections from all the stakeholders.
A speaking order will be passed in respect of each of the temples for
which objections have been received. We further direct that the opinion
of the agamic expert who had been consulted shall be enclosed along
with the speaking order disposing of the objection. The grievance of the
petitioner thus stands redressed.
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:53 pm )

WP(MD) No. 30397 of 2026
8. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(G.R.S.,J.) (P.M.N.,J.)
23-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SKM
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,
No. 119, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 014
3. The Chairman,
Agama Committee,
Office of the Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:53 pm )

WP(MD) No. 30397 of 2026
G.R.SWAMINATHAN J.
AND
DR.P.MURUGAN J.
SKM
WP(MD) No. 30397 of 2026
23-10-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:53 pm )