Srirangam Sthalattars, Not HR&CE, Must Complete Jeeyar Selection In 6 Months, Madras HC Says Vacancy Violates Disciples’ Rights

In brief

The question

1. Whether a public-interest writ petition is maintainable to seek action concerning a vacancy in the headship of a Mutt, where the vacancy affects religious practice and customary services.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the continuing vacancy infringed the rights of the Mutt’s disciples, including the petitioner.

It also directed

It directed the Joint Commissioner to call upon the Sthalattars to convene a meeting and required the Sthalattars to invite eligible and suitable persons to assume the Peetham; the process must be completed within six months.

The Court reserved the possibility of further intervention, including invoking its *parens patriae* jurisdiction, if the Sthalattars failed to act.

No costs were ordered.

01Facts

The petitioner, a devotee of the Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple and a disciple of the Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar Mutt, sought a direction to fill the vacancy in the Mutt’s Peetham so that the Jeeyar’s traditional and customary services at the temple could be performed.

p. 2

The 50th Jeeyar, who had ascended the Peetham in 1989, died in 2018 without nominating a successor.

p. 6

The judgment records that, under the Mutt’s usage, the successor is to be chosen by the temple’s Sthalattars.

p. 6

The HR&CE Department had called for applications in 2021 but had taken no consequential steps.

pp. 6–7

At the hearing, the Additional Advocate General stated that steps would be taken to secure a Head for the Mutt within six months.

pp. 6–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether a public-interest writ petition is maintainable to seek action concerning a vacancy in the headship of a Mutt, where the vacancy affects religious practice and customary services.

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether the HR&CE Department may appoint or approve the permanent successor to the Jeeyar, or whether selection must be made according to the Mutt’s settled usage.

pp. 7–10

iii.3. Whether the failure to fill the vacancy warrants judicial directions to ensure the selection process is undertaken within a specified period.

pp. 9–11

03Law Applied

Section 6(13) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 defines a “math” by reference to succession to its office being governed by the founder’s direction or by usage; Section 6(18) includes a Math within “religious institution,” and Chapter IV deals with Mutts.

p. 4

Succession to the headship of a Mutt is ordinarily governed by the founder’s direction or the institution’s custom and usage, rather than by an administrative appointment [*Shri Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir*, (1981) 3 SCC 689; *Marthanda Varma v. State of Kerala*, (2021) 1 SCC 225].

pp. 4, 9–10

Articles 25 and 26 protect religious belief and practice, including integral rituals and observances [*A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P.*, (1996) 9 SCC 548].

pp. 8–9

A Mutt’s head is a spiritual leader, not merely a temple employee, and statutory powers must not be used to diminish rights arising from usage [*Commissioner, HRE v. Sri L.T. Swamiyar of Sri Shirur Mutt*, AIR 1954 SC 282].

pp. 7–8

The Court also relied on authorities recognising that a court may intervene where a vacancy remains unfilled and the customary process is not carried forward.

pp. 4–5, 7

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1959 Section 6 Section 55

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Section 53

04Reasoning

The Court treated the vacancy as affecting both the Mutt’s succession customs and the performance of the Jeeyar’s traditional religious functions at the temple.

pp. 5–6, 9

It held that the Department’s role in filling a permanent vacancy was not one of appointment or approval: under the Tamil Nadu Act, the successor must be selected by the Sthalattars in accordance with settled usage, with the Department’s role limited to acknowledging that selection.

p. 7, 10

Given the Department’s failure to take the 2021 process forward, the Court found intervention warranted and directed the Joint Commissioner to convene the Sthalattars and facilitate completion of the selection process.

pp. 6, 10–11