Madras HC Leaves Kongu Vellala Gounder, Sengunthar Mudaliar Pongal Honours Undisturbed For 2026, Without Ruling On Custom

Respondents 5–10 applied under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, seeking recognition of customary honours at the Arulmigu Athanur Amman Temple during the Aippasi Pongal festival.

After an enquiry, the Regional Joint Commissioner held that members of the Kongu Vellala Gounder community from the Ettupatti villages were entitled to the first Vibuthi honour and a member of the Athanur Sengunthar Mudaliar community dressed as “Rajapathar” to the second.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending that neither he nor members of his community had been notified, that the claimed honours lacked proof, and that the reports before the authority were inconsistent.

The festival was due to conclude on 30 October 2026, three days after the Court’s order.

Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 empowers the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to determine whether a person is entitled by custom or otherwise to an honour, emolument or perquisite in a religious institution, and to determine its established usage.

The existence of a custom and the legality of the honour claimed are distinct questions; any determination must conform to constitutional equality and non-discrimination guarantees, and antiquity alone cannot validate an impermissible discriminatory practice.

An order under Section 63(e) is appealable under Section 69, and a statutory suit is provided for under Section 70 in matters covered by that provision.

Although an alternative statutory remedy ordinarily bears on the exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction, an alleged breach of natural justice is a recognised exception.

The Court noted that the application had been published at the temple and Village Administrative Office and an enquiry held, but did not treat publication as conclusively satisfying the notice requirement.

Whether affected persons ought to have been individually notified or impleaded, whether any omission caused prejudice, and whether the evidence established the custom were left for examination in the statutory appeal.

Given the festival’s imminent conclusion, the Court declined to disturb the arrangement for that year, while clarifying that this limited non-interference neither cured any procedural illegality nor affirmed the custom on its merits.

Any appeal is subject to statutory requirements, including limitation; the order neither determines its admissibility nor extends the limitation period.

The appeal authority must hear the affected parties and decide independently, without treating the High Court’s observations as findings on the merits.

The writ petition was disposed of, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and there was no order as to costs.