Selection Of A Pontiff Is A Purely Religious Function And Not A Secular Or Administrative Act: Madras High Court
The Bench held that non-filling of the Jeeyar vacancy at Srirangam infringes devotees’ rights under Article 25; HR&CE Department can only acknowledge the Sthalattars’ choice; fixed outer limit of six months.
The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench has held that the selection of a pontiff is a purely religious function and cannot be treated as a secular or administrative act. It ruled that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department therefore has no right to appoint a mutt head or to approve the appointment.
Allowing a public interest petition, the Court held that leaving the office of Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar vacant breaches the fundamental rights of the mutt’s disciples under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. It directed the Sthalattars of the Srirangam temple to select a successor, with the Department limited to formally acknowledging their choice, and set an outer limit of six months.
A Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Dr. Justice P. Murugan observed, “…We were shocked to note that the 50th Jeeyar was purportedly appointed vide proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.934/99/D1, dated 01.12.1989 issued by the then Executive Officer / Deputy Commissioner of the Temple. The authority had invoked Section 55(1) of the Act for appointing the Jeeyar…”.
“…The Department probably intends to carry out a similar exercise now. We have to firmly tell the department, ‘Sorry! We won’t permit you’. There is a reason why we say so. The selection of a Pontiff is a purely religious function and can never be construed as a secular or administrative act…”, the Bench said.
Advocate Raguvaran Gopalan appeared for the petitioner and P.V. Balasubramanian, Additional Advocate General appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, S. Veeraraghavan, a devotee and a disciple of the Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar Mutt, complained that the vacancy in the office had not been filled. The 50th Jeeyar ascended the Peetham in 1989 and died in 2018 without nominating a successor. Under the mutt’s customs, the successor must be chosen by the Sthalattars of the temple. The Department called for applications in 2021 but took no further steps, though qualified persons responded. During the hearing, the Additional Advocate General submitted that the Mutt would have a head within six months.
The Court first held the petition maintainable as a public interest litigation, while placing reliance on Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2016) 2 SCC 725 and Ma. Gouthaman v. State of Tamil Nadu 012 SCC Online Mad 4201.
On the merits, it noted that the Jeeyar occupies the apex position in the temple’s traditional scheme, and that in his absence his powers and honours are shared among the Sthalattars and Bhattars, who have no incentive to select a successor. It expressed alarm that the 50th Jeeyar had been appointed in 1989 by an executive officer under Section 55(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959, and told the Department it would not permit a repeat. Drawing precedents, it held that succession is governed by custom and that religious service according to the temple’s usages is integral to religious faith. Contrasting the Tamil Nadu Act with the Andhra Pradesh Act of 1987, it noted that the former gives the authority power only to make interim arrangements.
The Court directed the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Trichy, to call upon the Sthalattars to convene a meeting at the earliest. The Sthalattars are to invite eligible and suitable persons to come forward and decide their own road map, with the process to conclude within six months. The Court said it would step in under its parens patriae jurisdiction if they fail, possibly calling upon a kindred institution. It also observed that the new head is housed in Cheran Mutt within the temple campus and is entitled to be maintained from the Mutt’s income.
Cause Title: S. Veeraraghavan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., WP(MD) No. 30431 of 2026
Appearances:
Petitioner: Raguvaran Gopalan, Advocate.
Respondent: P.V. Balasubramanian, Additional Advocate General, M.P. Senthil, Government Pleader, M. Saravanan, Advocates.