Read Time: 16 minutes

It has been urged before court that the act of the State and HR&CE Department to impose their whims and fancies on any religion, whether that of majority or minority is unacceptable and must be dealt with iron fists, if one desires to protect the Constitution of India in its letter and spirit.

Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a plea that challenged the validity of the Annai Thamizhil Archanai scheme, recently introduced in several temples across the State of Tamil Nadu.

The Annai Thamizhil Archanai scheme allows pujas, chanting of Matras inside the temples in Tamil instead of only Sanskrit. The plea claimed that the State has allowed such practice due to linguistic chauvinism.

However, declining to entertain the plea, Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee & Justice P.D. Audikesavalu said that the issue has already been dealt with by the High Court in the year 2008.

But what were the arguments raised by the petitioner activist Rangarajan Narasimhan? On what grounds has he challenged the State implemented Scheme?

Here, we will try to understand what were the issues that compelled Rangarajan Narasimhan, who appeared before the court in-person, to bring the issue to the notice of the court.

Before that, it must be noted here that Mr. Narasimhan describes himself as a person deeply interested in the preservation of the sanctity of Sanathana Dharma religions and religious institutions.

He also says that he is a person who is deeply interested in protecting and upholding the Law of the land and he strives to ensure that Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India is preserved and protected.

Mr. Narasimhan has have filed a number of public interest litigation petitions espousing the cause where the rights and sentiments of followers of Sanathana Dharma Religion grouped under the umbrella of Hinduism are being trampled upon by governmental action.

Therefore, it becomes more just to go through what Mr. Narasimhan averred before the court.

In his affidavit before the court, Mr. Narasimhan raised several contentions highlighting how the said Scheme is an encroachment on the fundamental rights of the citizens. His averments were-

What it means to be a “Secular State”?

Mr. Narasimhan argued against the State’s interference in religious matters stating that,

“Being secular State fundamentally means that the State will NOT interfere, control any religion, religious affairs and religious institutions unless their affairs are against public order, morality and health.”

To support this statement, he reiterated Apex Court’s ruling in Bal Patil and Anr. V. Union of India that,

“Our concept of secularism, to put it in a nutshell, is that "State" will have no religion. The States will treat all religions and religious groups equally and with equal respect without in any manner their individual rights of religion, faith and worship."

The right to manage religious affairs is a fundamental right

He averred that according to the laws of the land, the right to manage the affairs of the religious institution is a fundamental right of the sampradhaya to which the institution belongs.

He submitted that Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India guarantees religious freedom as a fundamental right. He said that in the State of Tamil Nadu, this fundamental freedom of right to manage religious institutions and its affairs is time and again encroached upon by the State to Hindu temples.

Highlighting several sections of The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (HR&CE Act) and Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, he argued that under these laws it was more abundantly and unimpeachably clear that the State and HR&CE department cannot interfere in the religious affairs of Hindu temples in any manner whatsoever.

Performance of poojas, rituals and utsavas is a fundamental part of the religious practice of the sampradhaya

He argued that the performance of Poojas, rituals, and Utsavas in a temple is a religious affair and more so a belief and faith which is a fundamental part of the religious practice of the respective religious denomination to which the temple belongs to. Therefore, the management of the same is guaranteed by Article 26 of the Constitution of India too.

“Annai Thamizhil Archanai” scheme has an indirect forcefulness

He argued that the “Annai Thamizhil Archanai” scheme indirectly forced archakas of several temples to perform Archana in the Tamil language by providing them with a set of sentences in the Tamil language to be read during the performance of Archana.

The state is habitual to interfere in Religious matters of Hindu Temples

He argued that the HR&CE Department is to streamline only the secular affairs and the related administration of a temple. However, they both are habitual in not just interfering in the religious affairs of the Hindu Religious Institutions (Temples and Mutts) but also deny the rights and even worse take over the religious administration in a brazen blatant fashion

He said that this is a brazen encroachment on the religious freedom of the religious denomination is ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution of India.

Temples across State are deprived of a Board of Trustees for several decades

He submitted that among the Hindu temples across the State 99.5% are deprived of a Board of Trustees for several decades.

A trustee is a true officer whose office was constituted for the management of the religious and other affairs of the Temples. For to be appointed as a trustee one needs to be well qualified and acquainted with the traditions and customs of the Temple concerned. However, if there is a vacancy in the Trustee’s place, the HR&CE department appoints a fit person as Executive Officer to perform Trustee’s duties. These officers are often found neither qualified nor well acquainted with the customs and traditions of the temples.

HR&CE Department is to streamline only the secular affairs

He stated that the fundamental purpose of the HR&CE Department is to streamline the secular affairs and the related administration of a temple, wherever necessary. Also, Department’s actions are also required to be justified as per S. 71 of the HR&CE Act.

He said that it is not for the HR&CE Department to introduce new religious practices in the guise of reforms in the religious rituals, however so ever well-intentioned it may be. He said so as it is not simply the sphere or zone of their activity in a religious institution, and it infringes the freedom of religious denominations guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

The scheme is a brazen encroachment on the religious freedom

He submitted that the scheme is a brazen encroachment on the religious freedom of the religious denomination is ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution of India.

He said that the performance of archanas, Poojas are religious rituals that are an integral part of a religious faith. Therefore, for a State to interfere in such religious rituals is unconstitutional and such attempt is nothing but an attempt to cause disruption and confusion in the minds of otherwise peaceful loving citizens of the Country.

He also said that the Constitution does not permit any individual or State to dictate or to demand that worship of a Lord in a particular way. Rather, it protects the right to perform the rituals in the way that is deemed fit by the religious denomination - a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 26, he added.

Therefore, he urged before the court that the act of the State and HR&CE Department to impose their whims and fancies on any religion, whether that of majority or minority is unacceptable and must be dealt with iron fists, if one desires to protect the Constitution of India in its letter and spirit.

Case Title: Rangarajan Narasimhan Vs. The Principal Secretary And Another.