S.Veeraraghavan vs The State of Tamil Nadu
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP(MD) No. 30431 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. 30431 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011531332026}
S.Veeraraghavan
S/o Sampath
147, North Chithra Street,
Srirangam, Trichy-620006
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
No. 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600034
2. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034.
3. The Joint Commissioner
Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam,
Srirangam, Trichy
4. The Executive Trustee
Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam,
Srirangam,
Trichy
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:52:42 pm )
WP(MD) No. 30431 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 forthwith take all steps as may be required to
ensure that the vacancy in the Peetham of the Sriranganarayana Jeeyar
Madam gets filed so that the services required to be rendered in the Sri
Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam as per the traditions customs and
usages be rendered by the newly ascended Sriranganarayana Jeeyar,
within a time period stipulated by this Court and pass such other orders
and thus render justice.
For Petitioner: Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan
For Respondents: Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian,
Addl. Advocate General,
Asst. by Mr.M.P.Senthil,
Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2.
Mr.M.Saravanan for R3 & R4
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. The writ petitioner hails from Srirangam. He claims to be an
ardent devotee of Arulmigu Sri Ranganathaswamy. He belongs to Sri
Vaishnava Tenkalai sect. He is a sishya of the Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar
__________
Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:52:42 pm )
WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
Mutt. The Srirangam Ranganathaswamy Temple is the foremost of the
108 Divyadesams. He is aggrieved by the non-filling up of the vacancy
in the office of the Pontiff of Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar Mutt. Hence, this
Public Interest Litigation.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General straight away
submitted that steps will be taken so that the said Mutt has a Head within
six months.
4. We wondered if a PIL is maintainable in such cases. The
answer was found in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam Vs. State
of Tamil Nadu (2016) 2 SCC 725 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed
that the argument that the writ petition before them was founded on a
cause relating to appointment in a public office and hence not
entertainable as a public interest litigation would be too simplistic a
solution to adopt to answer the issues that have been highlighted which
concerns the religious faith and practice of a large number of citizens of
the country and raises claims of century-old traditions and usage having
the force of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court felt impelled to answer the
issues raised before it on the merits thereof in view of the gravity of the
issues thrown up for consideration.
__________
Page 3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:52:42 pm )
WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
5. The Madras High Court has been more forthcoming on the point
in Ma.Gouthaman Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2012 SCC Online Mad
4201 . It was held that if there was any inaction on the part of the State in
initiating action in a matter of public concern, the Court can give a
direction to the Government in exercise of its judicial discretion in a PIL.
That case pertained to the appointment of a successor of a Mutt.
6. Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 was enacted to amend and
consolidate the law relating to the administration and governance of
Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the State
of Tamil Nadu. The expression “religious institution” has been defined in
Section 6(18) of the Act as meaning a Math. The term “math” has been
defined in Section 6(13) as meaning a Hindu Religious Institution with
properties attached thereto and presided over by a person, the succession
to whose office devolves in accordance with the direction of the Founder
of the institution or regulated by usage. Chapter IV of the Act deals with
mutts. A mutt has to have a Mathadhipati. Normally, during his lifetime,
the Mathadhipati would nominate his successor. But there could arise
situations when a mathadhipati passes away without making such a
nomination. When such vacancies arise, it has to be filled up in
accordance with the custom of the particular institution (vide Shri
__________
Page 4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:52:42 pm )
WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir (1981) 3 SCC 689).
7. In Vidyapurna Tirthaswami Vs. Vidyanidhi Tirthaswami (ILR
27 Mad 435) , it was noted that in most cases, especially in Southern
India, the successor is ordained and appointed by the Head of the Mutt
during his own lifetime and in default of such appointment, the
nomination may rest with the head of some kindred institution or the
successor may be appointed by election by the disciples and followers of
the Mutt or, in the last instances, by the court as representing the
sovereign. This proposition was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal Vs. Arulnandhi Thambiran
Swamigal (1974) 1 SCC 150.
8. We take judicial notice of the fact that Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar
mutt has been a part of the administration of Sri Ranganathaswamy
Temple, Srirangam. The Jeeyar who is the head of the mutt, has been
invested with certain functions and powers. They have been catalogued
briefly in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that
there is an administrative manual known as “Kovil Ozhugu”. Sri
Ramanujacharya himself had devised an elaborate system of running the
temple. The Jeeyar occupies the apex position in the scheme of things.
__________
Page 5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:52:42 pm )
WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
The Jeeyar has to be an ascetic. Unlike other mutt heads, the Jeeyar must
take to sanyas after leading the life of a house holder. The hoary lineage
th
of the Jeeyars can be traced to the 12 century A.D. The Jeeyars
discharge spiritual functions apart from carrying out administrative
responsibilities. The Jeeyar is envisaged as a neutral arbiter to ensure that
Agamas are followed.
th
9. The 50 Jeeyar of the aforesaid mutt ascended to the Peetham
in the year 1989 and passed away in 2018. He did not nominate his
successor during his lifetime. As per the customs and usage of the mutt,
the successor must be chosen by the Sthalattars of the temple. The
decision can be unanimous or by majority. Nature abhors vacuum. So
does power. If there is no Jeeyar, the power vested in him gets distributed
among the Sthalattars and the Bhattars. They receive the honours in the
place of the Jeeyar. Since there is no Jeeyar, there is no one to question
them also. There is no incentive for them to choose the next Jeeyar. On
the other hand, the status quo suits them. But it certainly infringes the
rights of the devotees. A devotee of a temple is entitled to insist that its
administration is carried on in accordance with the settled usages. As
already mentioned, the Jeeyar has been assigned with certain special
duties. He is considered as the personal attendant of the Lord Himself.
__________
Page 6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:52:42 pm )
WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
The non-discharge of such spiritual functions on account of the vacancy
in the office of Jeeyar constitutes a breach of the petitioner’s fundamental
rights under Article 25 of the Constitution.
10. When the Sthalattars did not extend their cooperation, the
jurisdictional Joint Commissioner of the HR & CE Department ought to
have nudged them into selecting a suitable successor. Instead, the
department called for applications in the year 2021. But no consequential
steps were taken even though there was response from duly qualified
persons. That is why, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the
learned Additional Advocate General submitted that they would resume
the process and conclude the same within six months.
11. The said submission of the learned Additional Advocate
General was reassuring in one sense. At the same time, it also set alarm
th
bells ringing. We were shocked to note that the 50 Jeeyar was
purportedly appointed vide proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.934/99/D1,
dated 01.12.1989 issued by the then Executive Officer / Deputy
Commissioner of the Temple. The authority had invoked Section 55(1) of
the Act for appointing the Jeeyar. The Department probably intends to
carry out a similar exercise now. We have to firmly tell the department
__________
Page 7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:52:42 pm )
WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
“Sorry! We won’t permit you”. There is a reason why we say so. The
selection of a Pontiff is a purely religious function and can never be
construed as a secular or administrative act (vide Ma.Gouthaman Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu 2012 SCC Online Mad 4201). Therefore, in the
very nature of things, the department cannot claim the right to appoint or
even to approve the appointment. The selection has to be made by the
Sthalattars. Their choice has to be formally acknowledged by the
department and nothing more. We reiterate that the Jeeyar is only the
servant of the deity. He cannot be considered as the employee of the
temple. His status cannot be reduced to that of a temple staff. He will not
come under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the trustees / fit person. Of
course, if in an exceptional case, the mutt head is found to abuse his
position, there are provisions in the statute to deal with the situation.
12. In the Commissioner, HRE, Madras Vs. Sri L.T.Swamiyar of
Sri Shirur Mutt (AIR) 1954 SC 282 , it was observed that a Matathipathi
is not a corporate body. He is the head of a spiritual fraternity and by
virtue of his office, he has to perform the duties of a religious teacher. It
is his duty to practice and propagate the religious tenets of which he is an
adherent. It was further noted that the statutory scheme cannot be so
construed to reduce the Mahant to the position of a servant. The
__________
Page 8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:52:42 pm )
WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
Commissioner is no doubt invested with certain powers to pass orders,
but orders can be passed only for the purposes specified in the Section
and not for interference with the rights of the Mahant as are sanctioned by
usage or for lowering his position as the spiritual Head of the institution.
13. In Marthanda Varma Vs. State of Kerala (2021) 1 SCC 225 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“91.10. Succession to mahantship of a math or
religious institutions is regulated by custom or usage
of the particular institution, except where a rule of
succession is laid down by the founder himself who
created the endowment. ( Sital Das Vs. Sant Ram
Sital Das Vs. Sant Ram, AIR 1954 SC 606) .
91.11. The rule of custom should prevail in all
cases and if any aberrations have to be corrected,
such correction must take us in the direction of re-
establishing the rule of custom.”
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.S.Narayana Deekshitulu Vs.
State of A.P., (1996) 9 SCC 548 held that the protection of Articles 25
and 26 of the Constitution is not limited to matters of doctrine. They
extend also to acts done in furtherance of religion and therefore, they
contain a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of
worships which are integral parts of the religion. Performance of the
__________
Page 9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:52:42 pm )
WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
religious service according to the tenets, Agamas, customs and usages
prevalent in the temple, etc. is an integral part of the religious faith and
belief. Since there is no Jeeyar in Srirangam temple to perform the
traditional and customary services, and steps have not been taken to fill
up the vacancy, we are constrained to intervene.
15. It may not be out of place to compare the statutory scheme
obtaining in Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 and the Andhra Pradesh
Charitable and Hindu Religous Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.
Section 53 of the Andhra Act speaks of filling of permanent vacancies in
the office of Mathathipathi. Of course, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri
Sri Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu Vs. State of AP (1996) 8 SCC 705 , had
indicated that the Commissioner would act reasonably, objectively and
fairly. In Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959, there is no corresponding
provision. The authority has only been given power to make interim
arrangements and that too by having regard to the claims of the disciples.
We can, therefore, safely conclude that in the matter of filling permanent
vacancies in the office of Mutt Head, the department has no role. If at all,
they can only acknowledge the selection of the successor made in terms
of the settled usages.
__________
Page 10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:52:42 pm )
WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
16. In Ratnakar B. Kailaje v. Ramrao Narasingrao Divigi, 1987
SCC OnLine Kar 96, it was held as follows:-
“ 31. Matadhipathi is the head of a spiritual fraternity
and by virtue of his office has to perform the duties
pertaining to religious instruction. It is his duty to practise
and propagate the religious tenets and precepts of which he
is adherent. The object of the Math is to encourage and
foster spiritual training and instruction by ensuring a
competent line of teachers who could impart religious
instruction to the disciples and the followers of the Math and
to strengthen the religious tenets and beliefs of a particular
school of spiritual thought. Math as a juristic person cannot
achieve the above purpose without a Matadhipathi or a
spiritual head or a presiding element. It is only in this
context, it is stated that there can be no Math without a
Matadhipathi. ...”
17. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the non-filling up of the
vacancy in the office of Jeeyar in the subject Mutt infringes the
fundamental rights of the disciples of the mutt including the petitioner.
The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Trichy shall call upon
the Sthalattars to convene a meeting at the very earliest. The Sthalattars
will request eligible and suitable persons to come forward to adorn the
Peetham. We leave it to the wisdom of the Sthalattars to decide on the
road map. We do not want to micro-manage. But we lay down an outer
time limit of six months to conclude the process.
__________
Page 11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:52:42 pm )
WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
18. In passing, we remark that just as the Cardinals are locked
inside the Sistine Chapel and the doors are opened only when the white
smoke emanates from the chimney indicating the selection of the Pope,
the Sthalattars should be locked inside the Mutt premises and allowed to
come out only after resolving the issue. We make it clear that if the
Sthalattars fail to discharge this duty cast on them, we will not hesitate to
step in in exercise of our parens patriae jurisdiction. We may call upon a
kindred institution to carry out this exercise. We have in mind certain
eminent Vaishnavite Saints. We may enlist their services if the
Sthalattars do not rise to the occasion.
19. It is not enough that a new Head is chosen. As already
mentioned, he is housed in what is known as Cheran Mutt within the
temple campus. He has a right to be maintained out of the income of the
Mutt (P.Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon).
20. This Writ Petition is allowed on these terms. No costs.
(G.R.S.,J.) (P.M.N.,J.)
23-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
IAS/ RMI /PMU
__________
Page 12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:52:42 pm )
WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
To
1. The Secretary,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
No. 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600034
2. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034.
3. The Joint Commissioner
Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam,
Srirangam, Trichy
4. The Executive Trustee
Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam,
Srirangam,
Trichy
__________
Page 13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:52:42 pm )
WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
DR.P.MURUGAN, J.
IAS/ RMI /PMU
WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
23-10-2026
__________
Page 14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 08:52:42 pm )