Please scroll right down below to read a summary of the above verdict delivered by the Madras High Court in the matter of dispute over claims to rights of “Mudhal mariyadhai” in the Arulmigu Sri Kallazhagar Kovil , in Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
It could be argued that this verdict is blatant overturning of the well established legal dictum which says that hoary religious customs — mos majorum — have as much sanctity as what is known in legal parlance otherwise as “essential feature of a faith”.
The practice in Hindu temples of a certain protocol established by centuries of religious custom cannot be interfered with by operation of secular law in this rather cavalier fashion. This interference will, in fact, cause more social unrest than the custom itself has been alleged by the Court to be egregious cause. One Kallazhagar Kovil incident does not and cannot be the pretext to do away wholesale with the custom. That would be frivolity of the Law, not its Majesty.
The custom of “mudhal mariyadhai” in temples is as old as the common customary protocol of “primus inter pares” … first amongst equals . There is nothing at all to suggest social or caste discrimination or hierarchy here in such a custom that prevails almost universally. It is a form of religious sentiment , plain and simple … and a sentiment that accords “primus inter pares” status on persons based on some well reasoned or objective criteria. The religious community within itself decides from time to time what such criteria should be. And I for one am not able to see what earthly justification the Government has to interfere into religious affairs by overriding even what has been duly instituted as custom even in the Statutes of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act.
This status of “mudhal mariyadhai” or “primus inter-pares” is seen to be widely granted and observed even in many secular spheres , is it not ?
For e.g. at public or government events such as the Republic Day parade, for example, there is a clear protocol for even seating on the occasion according to some order of rank, length of service or by recognition of eminence … so on … Now, would that protocol also be regarded as “discriminatory”? That would be so nonsensical.
Surely, the Courts of our land possess enough wisdom to realise that not every pecking order in the world must have to be seen necessarily through the jaundiced lens of so-called “social justice”?
The Judiciary in Tamil Nadu seems to be playing excellent second fiddle to the political powers-that-be at the moment. The Judiciary is expected however by the common man to show utmost respect for the People and their mos majorum: i.e. time-honored traditions, principles, and behaviors passed down through generations.
The Church and State must maintain respectful distance at all times if Peace must prevail in this country.
Sudarshan Madabushi
**************************************
Background
The petitions arose from a dispute over ceremonial “first honour” rights during the annual Aadi festival at Arulmigu Kallazhagar Thirukovil in Madurai.
Two groups from Vellaripatti Village contested entitlement to the honours associated with temple rituals, including the right to wear the Parivattam and other ceremonial privileges conferred during the festival. One group contended that only four Karais (clans) from the village are entitled to these honours based on earlier agreements and rotational arrangements made in 2014 and revised in 2016 before the local Tahsildar. They argued that the honours should be conferred according to this mutually accepted rotational structure, asserting that the rival claimant’s turn had not yet arrived.
The opposing group, however, relied on a 1978 civil court decree recognising the existence of seven Karais in Vellaripatti, six belonging to the Kallar community and one to the Konar community. They contended that rights cannot be restricted to only four clans and insisted that honours must be allocated as per the recognised seven-Karai structure.
Following rival claims over entitlement to the first honour during the temple festival, the matter was brought before the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department.
The Deputy Commissioner, after considering the materials placed on record, directed the parties to approach the civil court to establish their respective rights conclusively.
Aggrieved by the Deputy Commissioner’s direction, the parties approached the Madras High Court seeking relief.
Court’s Observations
The Court observed that the practice of conferring hereditary or customary ceremonial honours dates back to the feudal era, where certain families or groups were historically accorded special rights during temple festivals.
Referring to Section 63(e) of the HR&CE Act, which recognises such claims, the Court expressed that the provision appears increasingly inconsistent with modern constitutional principles.
The Court noted that “such practices, including the grant of first honour in temples, foster discrimination and unrest, and have the propensity to cause communal disharmony among citizens, thereby demonstrating a form of passive untouchability prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution of India.”
In Pleas Seeking Installation Of Ganesh Idols Justice Saravanan also recalled his earlier observations in orders in Marimuthu v. Commissioner, HR&CE Department and Kasinathan v. Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, reiterating that “it is time for Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to be struck down or deleted from the statute by the Legislature, taking note of the fact that it is not in consonance with the cherished dream under the Preamble to the Constitution, Part III (particularly Article 14), Part IV, and Part V of the Constitution of India.”
However, he clarified that the broader constitutional question regarding the validity of Section 63(e) would need to be addressed independently in appropriate proceedings seeking a declaration that the provision is ultra vires, should the legislature fail to amend or repeal it.
Conclusion
While raising concerns over the constitutional implications of Section 63(e), the Court, considering the existing rotational arrangement and the circumstances of this case, directed the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to confer the first honour for the current year’s Aadi festival on the petitioner who had approached the Court seeking such relief. The petitions were accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to the parties to approach the civil court for adjudication of their competing claims to the temple honours.
Cause Title: M. Muthu Karuppan Ambalam v. Joint Commissioner (Administration), HR&CE Department & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:1900) Appearances: Petitioners: Advocate H. Lakshmi Shankar, Advocate K.P.S. Palanivel Rajan, Senior Counsel, for Advocate SMA. Jinnah Respondents: Advocate S.S. Madhavan, Additional Government Pleader; Advocate S. Manohar, Standing Counsel