Choosing a Temple Pontiff Is a Purely Religious Function, Rules Madras High Court

Choosing a Temple Pontiff Is a Purely Religious Function, Rules Madras High Court in S. Veeraraghavan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case: S. Veeraraghavan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Date of Judgment: 23 October 2026
Court: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
Coram: Justice G. R. Swaminathan and Justice P. Murugan
Proceedings: W.P.(MD) No. 30431 of 2026

Court Observation

“The selection of a Pontiff is a purely religious function and can never be construed as a secular or administrative act.”

Summary

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the selection of a pontiff is a purely religious function, and that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department has no right to appoint a mutt head or even to approve the appointment. Allowing a public interest petition, the Court held that leaving the office of Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar vacant infringes the fundamental rights of the mutt’s disciples under Article 25 of the Constitution.

The Court directed that the successor must be chosen by the Sthalattars of the Srirangam temple in accordance with the mutt’s customs and usages, with the Department limited to formally acknowledging their choice. It laid down an outer time limit of six months to conclude the selection process.

Key Holdings

  • The selection of a pontiff is a purely religious function and can never be construed as a secular or administrative act.
  • In the very nature of things, the HR&CE Department cannot claim the right to appoint or even to approve the appointment of a mutt head; the selection has to be made by the Sthalattars, and their choice has to be formally acknowledged by the Department and nothing more.
  • The non-filling of the vacancy in the office of Jeeyar infringes the fundamental rights of the disciples of the mutt, including the petitioner, under Article 25 of the Constitution.
  • Under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the authority has power only to make interim arrangements; there is no provision empowering it to fill permanent vacancies in the office of a mutt head.
  • The Jeeyar is only the servant of the deity and cannot be considered an employee of the temple or brought under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the trustees.

Directions Issued

  • The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Trichy, must call upon the Sthalattars to convene a meeting at the very earliest, and the Sthalattars must request eligible and suitable persons to come forward to adorn the Peetham.
  • The selection process must conclude within an outer time limit of six months.
  • If the Sthalattars fail to discharge this duty, the Court will not hesitate to step in under its parens patriae jurisdiction, and may call upon a kindred institution to carry out the exercise.
  • The new head is housed in Cheran Mutt within the temple campus and is entitled to be maintained from the mutt’s income.

Background

The petitioner, S. Veeraraghavan, a devotee and disciple of the Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar Mutt at Srirangam, complained that the vacancy in the office of Jeeyar 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 even though duly qualified persons responded. During the hearing, the Additional Advocate General submitted that the mutt would have a head within six months. The Court expressed shock that the 50th Jeeyar had himself been appointed in 1989 by an Executive Officer/Deputy Commissioner of the temple invoking Section 55(1) of the Act, and said it would not permit a similar exercise now.

Related Articles

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.

Tags: , ,