Introduction:

In Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam v. Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha & Ors., reported as 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 501 and decided in W.A. No.1280 of 2023, the Madras High Court was called upon to examine a sensitive and deeply rooted issue touching upon religious customs, temple administration, and the limits of enforceable rights in matters of ritual honour. The Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan dealt with an appeal arising out of a dispute concerning the conferment of “special honours” in the ancient and revered Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple at Kanchipuram. The appellant, Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam, questioned the denial of first special honour to its head during temple rituals, contending that such honour had been conferred in the past and formed part of established religious practice. The case brought into sharp focus the distinction between long-standing customs and legally enforceable rights, as well as the statutory role of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in regulating temple affairs. At its core, the controversy required the Court to balance reverence for tradition with the constitutional and statutory framework governing public temples, while reaffirming the foundational principle that the presiding deity remains the focal point of all honours and rituals.

Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant:

The appellant Ashramam contended that the practice of conferring special honours on the head of the mutt at Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple was not an isolated or sporadic occurrence but a long-recognized custom that had been consistently followed over the years. It was argued that the head of the appellant mutt had been honoured on at least five occasions after 1991, which demonstrated the existence of an established practice rather than a discretionary or ad hoc gesture. The appellant asserted that the discontinuance or denial of such honour amounted to arbitrary interference with religious usage and tradition, thereby warranting judicial intervention. It was further contended that the original writ petition, which culminated in an order restricting honours to only five specific mutts, had been filed without impleading the appellant, depriving it of an opportunity to defend its historical and customary claims. According to the appellant, this procedural lapse itself vitiated the earlier order. Emphasis was placed on the sanctity of age-old practices in Hindu temples, with the argument that once a religious honour is consistently conferred, it acquires a character that cannot be lightly taken away. The appellant thus sought recognition of its entitlement to special honour, or at the very least, a declaration that the denial of such honour without due process was illegal and unjust.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents and HR&CE Department:

Opposing the appeal, the respondents, including the Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, submitted that special honours in a public temple are governed strictly by established customs and statutory control, and cannot be claimed as a matter of absolute right by any individual or institution. It was argued that as per the prevailing customs and usage at Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple, honours were traditionally conferred only on five specific mutts, namely Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam (Sankara Mutt), Sri Ahobila Mutt, Sri Vanamalai Mutt, Sri Parakala Jeeyar Mutt, and Sri Vyasarayar Mutt. The HR&CE Department contended that the extension of honours beyond these mutts would disrupt settled customs and potentially lead to competing claims, administrative chaos, and dilution of temple discipline. The respondents further emphasized that even if honours had been conferred on the appellant mutt on certain occasions in the past, such instances could not be elevated to the status of a legally enforceable right. They maintained that the regulation of honours fell squarely within the domain of the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and not within the writ jurisdiction of the Court. According to the respondents, any dispute relating to religious honours or customary privileges must be adjudicated under Section 63(e) of the HR&CE Act, which specifically empowers authorities to decide questions relating to religious customs, honours, and emoluments.

Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:

After carefully considering the rival submissions, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and reaffirmed a clear legal principle: special honours in a temple can never be demanded as an absolute right. The Bench categorically held that the first and foremost honour in any temple is always to the presiding deity, and any honour extended to human functionaries, including heads of mutts, is necessarily secondary and subject to regulation. The Court acknowledged that honouring heads of mutts may have been followed as a practice in certain temples, including the one in question, but clarified that such practices do not automatically crystallize into enforceable legal rights. Importantly, the Bench noted that the HR&CE Department itself had not denied the fact that the appellant mutt’s head had been honoured on multiple occasions after 1991. However, the Court drew a sharp distinction between a practice being followed and a right being legally recognized. It held that whether such honour could be claimed as a matter of right was a question that squarely fell within the jurisdiction of the competent authority under the HR&CE Act, particularly Section 63(e), and not one to be conclusively determined by the High Court in appellate proceedings. The Court further found no infirmity in the earlier order of the Single Judge, which had limited recognised honours to five mutts based on prevailing customs, while leaving open the possibility of challenge if honours were extended beyond that framework. Emphasizing judicial restraint in matters involving religious administration, the Bench observed that courts must be cautious not to interfere in temple customs unless there is a clear violation of statutory or constitutional provisions. By granting liberty to the appellant to approach the competent authority under the HR&CE Act, the Court ensured that the dispute could be examined in the appropriate statutory forum equipped to assess evidence of custom, usage, and tradition. Concluding that special honours cannot override the primacy of the deity or be asserted as an indefeasible right, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the principle that temple administration must remain orderly, regulated, and firmly rooted in law.