R.Sathyanarayanan vs The Secretary to Government
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP(MD)No. 30448 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. 30448 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011532622026}
R.Sathyanarayanan S/o.Ramamoorthy,
Plot No.8, Vaishnavi Nagar,
5th Street, Tirumullaivoyal,
Tiruvallur - 600 062
Now residing at
No.73 LIC Colony, 4th Street,
Meenambalpuram,
Madurai 625002
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
(HR and CE) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
(HR and CE) Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600034
3. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
(HR and CE) Department,
No.H 306 TNHB Colony, Ellis Nagar,
Madurai-625016.
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )
WP(MD)No. 30448 of 2026
4. The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Kallalagar Temple
(HR and CE Department),
Alagarkovil, Melur Main Road,
Madurai
..Respondents
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 take necessary steps to fill-up the post of Jeer in the 4th
respondent Temple wtihin stipulated time fixed by this Court in
accordance with law and pass such further or other orders as this Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus
render justice.
For Petitioner: Mr.T.Antony Arulraj
For Respondents: Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian,
Additional Advocate General,
Asst. by Mr.M.P.Senthil,
Government Pleader for R1 to R3
Mr.Chandrasekar for R4
ORDER
“id est” is the Latin expression for “that is”. It is employed to make
the meaning of something clearer or show its true meaning. Our
Constitution speaks of “India, that is Bharat”. Is India the same as
Bharat? Both yes and no. India is more a political construct defined as
an “union of states”. Bharat, on the other hand, underlines our
civilisational and cultural nationhood.
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )
WP(MD)No. 30448 of 2026
2. While a State is held together by the force of law, a nation is an
organic whole. It is more made up of social institutions. If such
institutions are lost, the nation’s well-being will suffer. They have to be
retrieved. The focus in this case is on restoration of one such
civilisational aspect. The writ petitioner points out that the office of
Jeeyar traditionally associated with Arulmigu Kallalagar Temple,
Madurai is vacant for more than eighty years. He wants this Court to
direct the authorities to take steps to fill up the said vacancy.
3. The counsel for the temple, however, took exception to the
prayer made in the writ petition. The learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the HR&CE Department who took a positive
stand in an identical issue a little while ago was not as forthcoming.
4. This writ petition was listed as Item No.48. Item No.45
(WP(MD)No.30431 of 2026) pertained to filling up the vacancy in the
th
office of Jeeyar of Arulmigu Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple. Its 50
Jeeyar had passed away in the year 2018. The department had called
for applications in the year 2021. Since nothing transpired thereafter,
WP(MD)No.30431 of 2026 came to be filed. The learned Additional
Advocate General undertook before us that the process will be resumed
and that Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar Mutt will have a Head before the
end of six months.
__________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )
WP(MD)No. 30448 of 2026
5. We posed a pointed question to the learned standing counsel
for the temple as well as the learned Additional Advocate General as to
whether there was any Jeeyar for Kallalagar Temple also. Both fairly
admitted that there indeed were Jeeyars for the temple. The last Jeeyar
demitted the Peetam sometime in 1940s. Since then, the office remains
unfilled.
6. Kallalagar temple is also one of the 108 Divya Desams (Holy
Shrines). It belongs to Sri Vaishnava Tenkalai sect. Should we dismiss
the writ petition merely because the office of the Jeeyar in Kallalagar
Temple has remained vacant for eight decades ? There is a direct
answer in the decision reported in (2021) 1 SCC 225 (Marthanda
Varma Vs. State of Kerala). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 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. We take it that something lost must be
brought back. Speaking of water bodies, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that if a tank has fallen into disuse, it must be restored. We
apply the very same principle analogously to the case on hand. Even
though there is no Jeeyar for Kallalagar Temple for the last eighty
years, it is time to restore the said tradition. The last Jeeyar was
appointed in 1937. He appears to have vanished from the scene
sometime in 1946. That steps were not taken soon thereafter is not a
ground to argue that steps should not be taken now also.
__________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )
WP(MD)No. 30448 of 2026
7. The settled custom followed for several centuries was that the
Jeeyar was the highest spiritual and administrative authority in
managing the Kallalagar temple. The Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959
was not a new piece of legislation that sprung out of a magician’s hat. It
was preceded by the 1951 legislation. Earlier, there was the 1927 Act.
Even before that there were Regulations governing the field. The
Government had supervisory power over religious institutions. We may
add tongue - in - cheek that the Government had the courage to crack
the whip only in the case of Hindu religious institutions. Mutts are also
religious institutions. The 1959 Act defines what is a mutt. There is a
separate chapter devoted to mutts. Section 60 of the Act mandates that
the jurisdictional authority shall take steps to make temporary
arrangements when vacancy arises in the office of Madathipathi.
8. That is why, vide order dated 23.10.2026 in WP(MD)No.30431
of 2026, we held that a PIL will be maintainable in such cases. We also
held that a vacancy in the office of Jeeyar must be filled up in
accordance with the settled usages and customs of the Mutt. We relied
on Ma.Gouthaman Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2012 SCC Online Mad
4201, Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu (2016) 2 SCC 725, Shri Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir (1981)
3 SCC 689), Vidyapurna Tirthaswami Vs. Vidyanidhi Tirthaswami
(ILR 27 Mad 435), Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal Vs.
__________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )
WP(MD)No. 30448 of 2026
Arulnandhi Thambiran Swamigal (1974) 1 SCC 150, Commissioner,
HRE, Madras Vs. Sri L.T.Swamiyar of Sri Shirur Mutt (AIR) 1954
SC 282, A.S.Narayana Deekshitulu Vs. State of A.P., (1996) 9 SCC
548, Sri Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu Vs. State of AP (1996) 8 SCC
705 and Ratnakar B. Kailaje v. Ramrao Narasingrao Divigi, 1987
SCC OnLine Kar 96.
9. We have elaborately and extensively dealt with the
appointment of Jeeyar of Arulmighu Ranganathaswamy Temple,
Srirangam. The very same principles will apply mutatis mutandis to the
appointment of Jeeyar of Kallalagar Temple also. However, there is one
vital distinction. The settled usage in the case of Sri Ranganarayana
Jeeyar Mutt is that if the incumbent passes away without nominating the
successor, the sthalattars will select the successor. Though in Alagar
Koil, there are no sthalattars, we would not wring our hands in despair.
This is because guidance is provided in Vidyapurna Tirthaswami Vs.
Vidyanidhi Tirthaswami (ILR 27 Mad 435). It was held therein that in
such cases, the nomination may rest with the head of some kindred
institutions. Since the Mutt has been headless for eighty years, one
would be groping in the dark to trace its disciples and followers. As laid
down in the aforesaid decision, the court in the place of the sovereign
will have to step in. This decision was endorsed in toto by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal Vs.
Arulnandhi Thambiran Swamigal (1974) 1 SCC 150.
__________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )
WP(MD)No. 30448 of 2026
10. We have held in the Srirangam case that a Jeeyar is not a
departmental appointee. Nor is he subject to the disciplinary power of
the Board of Trustees. If however, he abuses his power and position,
the statute contains provision to deal with the same.
11. The materials enclosed in the typed set of papers clearly
delineate the role to be played by the Jeeyar. He is primarily the servant
of the Lord and is His personal attendant. It is seen from the “Thozhil
Attavanai” and “Suthanthira Attavanai” which are the governing
documents with regard to the religious and secular administration of the
temple that the Jeeyar is an intrinsic part of the temple administration.
He is the paramount authority. He will hold the temple keys. The other
staff including the priests are answerable to him. Therefore, the Jeeyar
has to be housed within the temple campus. He has to be maintained
out of the temple funds.
12. The petitioner is an ardent devotee of Kallalagar. He is
entitled to insist that the administration of the temple is carried out as
laid down in “Thozhil Attavanai” and “Suthanthira Attavanai”. Every
devotee is a stakeholder in the matter of upholding the temple customs
and usages. This right flows out of Article 25 of the Constitution of
India.
__________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )
WP(MD)No. 30448 of 2026
13. Since the successor can be chosen by the Heads of the
Kindred Institutions, we request the following persons, namely,
Thirukurungudi Jeeyar Swamy, Alwarthirunagari Jeeyar Swamy and
Periya Nambigal Swamy to undertake the task of choosing the next
Pontiff of Arulmighu Sri Ramanuja Jeeyar Mutt, Kallalagar Temple,
Madurai. Since venerable religious personages have been entrusted
with this onerous task, we consciously refrain from issuing any time-
bound direction. They shall confer amongst themselves either in person
or through virtual mode. We express our sincere hope that this process
will be fast-tracked and the Kallalagar Temple will have a Jeeyar of
eminence at the earliest. Once the choice is made, the department will
formally issue proceedings recognising the same.
14. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(G.R.S.,J.) (P.M.N.,J.)
23-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SKM
Note : Issue order copy today (30.10.2026)
__________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )
WP(MD)No. 30448 of 2026
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE)
Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE)
Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600034
3. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE)
Department,
No.H 306 TNHB Colony, Ellis Nagar,
Madurai-625016
4. The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Kallalagar Temple (HR and CE Department),
Alagarkovil, Melur Main Road,
Madurai
__________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )
WP(MD)No. 30448 of 2026
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
DR.P.MURUGAN, J.
SKM
WP(MD) No. 30448 of 2026
23-10-2026
__________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:21 pm )