Introduction:

In the landmark case PB Rajahamsam v. S Narayanan and connected matters, bearing citations 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 463 and case numbers W.A.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2022, W.P.No.13027 of 2021, W.P.No.12955 of 2022, W.P.No.24729 of 2018 and Cont.P.No.367 of 2020, the Madras High Court meticulously examined the long-standing dispute between two ancient sects of Vaishnavism—the Thengalai (Southern cult) and the Vadagalai (Northern cult)—pertaining to ceremonial rights within the revered precincts of the Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple in Kancheepuram. This dispute is deeply rooted in centuries-old religious practices and historically litigated matters dating back as far as the eighteenth century. The controversy revolved around the right to recite specific mantras, prabandhams, and verses during the ceremonial worship of the deity, particularly those in praise of their respective Gurus, with both sects claiming religious legitimacy and constitutional protection over their practices. While the single judge had earlier allowed the Vadagalai sect to chant their own religious verses, asserting that freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 included associated rites and ceremonies, the present division bench comprising Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice S Sounthar delved deeper into the constitutional contours of religious freedoms, public order, established temple customs, and the delineation between ordinary worshippers and office holders. The court observed that the Thengalai sect historically possessed the legally recognized right to perform the office of Adhiyapakam Mirai, an official service attached to ceremonial worship, and that this office was not a mere privilege conferred by custom but one acknowledged consistently through earlier judicial pronouncements in 1882, 1915, 1939, and 1970. The bench highlighted that the rights of office holders are not equivalent to those of ordinary worshippers and that while every devotee is entitled to worship the deity, such rights do not extend to performing ritualistic duties that are ancestrally and institutionally vested in designated office bearers.

Arguments:

The Thengalai sect argued that granting the Vadagalai sect permission to recite their own mantras during ceremonial worship would disrupt the sanctity of the rituals, undermine judicially recognized rights of temple office holders, and violate established custom. They contended that the constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion does not permit interference in ritualistic duties vested in particular groups who are entrusted by tradition and authority to carry out those duties. The Thengalai sect maintained that the Vadagalai sect’s demand was not an assertion of religious freedom but a veiled attempt to encroach upon ceremonial privileges exclusive to Thengalai representatives who historically bore the duty of chanting the Manthram and Prabandham during pooja and other ceremonial events. They emphasized that allowing simultaneous recitation by different sects would inevitably lead to discord, chaos, and dilution of ceremonial purpose, thereby disturbing public order and affecting other worshippers’ right to peaceful worship.

On the contrary, the Vadagalai sect vehemently asserted that the right to recite mantras in praise of their Guru formed an intrinsic component of their religious identity and devotional freedom protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. They insisted that the earlier litigations recognizing Thengalai rights were either violative of fundamental freedoms or applicable only to seven families and therefore incapable of binding the entire sect. They maintained that the right to worship is not passive and must include expressive elements, including uttering sacred verses, singing prayers, and expressing devotion in the manner prescribed by one’s religious tradition. They contended that denial of such rights amounted to discrimination solely based on religious identity, contrary to secular principles enshrined in the Constitution. The Vadagalai sect further asserted that the temple authorities could not regulate spiritual expression unless it was proven that such expression posed a clear threat to public order or obstructed temple administration. They contended that chanting hymns during worship was an integral religious practice rather than an effort to usurp administrative or ritualistic roles. The sect accused the temple administration of selectively implementing centuries-old decisions without revisiting them in the context of evolving constitutional jurisprudence, particularly in light of post-independence recognition of individual freedoms. They argued that the earlier judgments failed to consider the fundamental rights framework of the Constitution and should not be treated as judgments in rem.

Judgement:

However, the court, after carefully reviewing voluminous historical records, prior decrees, religious treatises, temple manuals, and the constitutional scheme, emphatically rejected the Vadagalai sect’s challenge and upheld the Thengalai sect’s rights. The bench observed that the distinction between office holders and ordinary devotees is pivotal to understanding the rights in question. While every devotee, irrespective of sect, is entitled to worship the deity and partake in temple rituals as spectators, they cannot assume or imitate the role of official priests, puja assistants, or Othurvars. Allowing ordinary worshippers to recite mantras loudly during ceremonial worship would not only intrude into the duties reserved for office holders but also jeopardize the peaceful environment necessary for divine worship. The court reiterated that Articles 25 and 26, though protecting freedom of religion, are not absolute and are expressly subject to public order, morality, and health. Thus, any religious expression that disrupts ceremonial worship or obstructs established ritual performance falls squarely within the category of permissible restrictions. The court further noted that the Vadagalai sect’s rights to participate in the pooja were never curtailed; rather, the restriction was only against loudly reciting their own mantras during official service reserved for the Thengalai sect. This, the court held, was a constitutionally valid restriction aimed at maintaining public order and ensuring uninterrupted divine service. The bench underscored that religious freedom does not confer the right to create disorder or transform solemn rituals into arenas of sectarian competition. The judges maintained that if individual worshippers were allowed to recite their verses during official ceremonies, the sanctity of temple worship would deteriorate into discordant recitals, creating confusion and depriving all devotees of a peaceful spiritual experience. Therefore, the bench concluded that the rights recognized in previous rounds of litigation in favour of the Thengalai sect continue to hold legal validity and are binding, and any attempt to disturb such arrangements would constitute judicial interference into established religious customs. Accordingly, the court set aside the order of the single judge allowing the Vadagalai sect to recite their prayers and allowed the petitions filed by the Thengalai sect, thereby protecting their exclusive ceremonial functions. The judgment stands as a vital intersection between constitutional rights, religious custom, temple governance, and social harmony, establishing that freedom of religion cannot be turned into a license for institutional intrusion or disruption of sacred traditions.