WP(MD)/30448/2026 of R.Sathyanarayanan Vs The Secretary to Government on 23 October 2026

ORDER

“id est” is the Latin expression for “that is”. It is employed to make the meaning of something clearer or show its true meaning. Our Constitution speaks of “India, that is Bharat”. Is India the same as Bharat? Both yes and no. India is more a political construct defined as an “union of states”. Bharat, on the other hand, underlines our civilisational and cultural nationhood.

2. While a State is held together by the force of law, a nation is an organic whole. It is more made up of social institutions. If such institutions are lost, the nation’s well-being will suffer. They have to be retrieved. The focus in this case is on restoration of one such civilisational aspect. The writ petitioner points out that the office of Jeeyar traditionally associated with Arulmigu Kallalagar Temple, Madurai is vacant for more than eighty years. He wants this Court to direct the authorities to take steps to fill up the said vacancy.

3. The counsel for the temple, however, took exception to the prayer made in the writ petition. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the HR&CE Department who took a positive stand in an identical issue a little while ago was not as forthcoming.

4. This writ petition was listed as Item No.48. Item No.45 (WP(MD)No.30431 of 2026) pertained to filling up the vacancy in the office of Jeeyar of Arulmigu Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple. Its 50th Jeeyar had passed away in the year 2018. The department had called for applications in the year 2021. Since nothing transpired thereafter, WP(MD)No.30431 of 2026 came to be filed. The learned Additional Advocate General undertook before us that the process will be resumed and that Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar Mutt will have a Head before the end of six months.

5. We posed a pointed question to the learned standing counsel for the temple as well as the learned Additional Advocate General as to whether there was any Jeeyar for Kallalagar Temple also. Both fairly admitted that there indeed were Jeeyars for the temple. The last Jeeyar demitted the Peetam sometime in 1940s. Since then, the office remains unfilled.

6. Kallalagar temple is also one of the 108 Divya Desams (Holy Shrines). It belongs to Sri Vaishnava Tenkalai sect. Should we dismiss the writ petition merely because the office of the Jeeyar in Kallalagar Temple has remained vacant for eight decades ? There is a direct answer in the decision reported in (2021) 1 SCC 225 (Marthanda Varma Vs. State of Kerala). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the rule of custom should prevail in all cases and if any aberrations have to be corrected, such correction must take us in the direction of re- establishing the rule of custom. We take it that something lost must be brought back. Speaking of water bodies, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a tank has fallen into disuse, it must be restored. We apply the very same principle analogously to the case on hand. Even though there is no Jeeyar for Kallalagar Temple for the last eighty years, it is time to restore the said tradition. The last Jeeyar was appointed in 1937. He appears to have vanished from the scene sometime in 1946. That steps were not taken soon thereafter is not a ground to argue that steps should not be taken now also.

7. The settled custom followed for several centuries was that the Jeeyar was the highest spiritual and administrative authority in managing the Kallalagar temple. The Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 was not a new piece of legislation that sprung out of a magician’s hat. It was preceded by the 1951 legislation. Earlier, there was the 1927 Act. Even before that there were Regulations governing the field. The Government had supervisory power over religious institutions. We may add tongue - in - cheek that the Government had the courage to crack the whip only in the case of Hindu religious institutions. Mutts are also religious institutions. The 1959 Act defines what is a mutt. There is a separate chapter devoted to mutts. Section 60 of the Act mandates that the jurisdictional authority shall take steps to make temporary arrangements when vacancy arises in the office of Madathipathi.

8. That is why, vide order dated 23.10.2026 in WP(MD)No.30431 of 2026, we held that a PIL will be maintainable in such cases. We also held that a vacancy in the office of Jeeyar must be filled up in accordance with the settled usages and customs of the Mutt. We relied on Ma.Gouthaman Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2012 SCC Online Mad 4201, Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2016) 2 SCC 725, Shri Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir (1981) 3 SCC 689), Vidyapurna Tirthaswami Vs. Vidyanidhi Tirthaswami (ILR 27 Mad 435), Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal Vs.

Arulnandhi Thambiran Swamigal (1974) 1 SCC 150, Commissioner, HRE, Madras Vs. Sri L.T.Swamiyar of Sri Shirur Mutt (AIR) 1954 SC 282, A.S.Narayana Deekshitulu Vs. State of A.P., (1996) 9 SCC 548, Sri Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu Vs. State of AP (1996) 8 SCC 705 and Ratnakar B. Kailaje v. Ramrao Narasingrao Divigi, 1987 SCC OnLine Kar 96.

9. We have elaborately and extensively dealt with the appointment of Jeeyar of Arulmighu Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam. The very same principles will apply mutatis mutandis to the appointment of Jeeyar of Kallalagar Temple also. However, there is one vital distinction. The settled usage in the case of Sri Ranganarayana Jeeyar Mutt is that if the incumbent passes away without nominating the successor, the sthalattars will select the successor. Though in Alagar Koil, there are no sthalattars, we would not wring our hands in despair. This is because guidance is provided in Vidyapurna Tirthaswami Vs. Vidyanidhi Tirthaswami (ILR 27 Mad 435). It was held therein that in such cases, the nomination may rest with the head of some kindred institutions. Since the Mutt has been headless for eighty years, one would be groping in the dark to trace its disciples and followers. As laid down in the aforesaid decision, the court in the place of the sovereign will have to step in. This decision was endorsed in toto by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal Vs. Arulnandhi Thambiran Swamigal (1974) 1 SCC 150.

10. We have held in the Srirangam case that a Jeeyar is not a departmental appointee. Nor is he subject to the disciplinary power of the Board of Trustees. If however, he abuses his power and position, the statute contains provision to deal with the same.

11. The materials enclosed in the typed set of papers clearly delineate the role to be played by the Jeeyar. He is primarily the servant of the Lord and is His personal attendant. It is seen from the “Thozhil Attavanai” and “Suthanthira Attavanai” which are the governing documents with regard to the religious and secular administration of the temple that the Jeeyar is an intrinsic part of the temple administration. He is the paramount authority. He will hold the temple keys. The other staff including the priests are answerable to him. Therefore, the Jeeyar has to be housed within the temple campus. He has to be maintained out of the temple funds.

12. The petitioner is an ardent devotee of Kallalagar. He is entitled to insist that the administration of the temple is carried out as laid down in “Thozhil Attavanai” and “Suthanthira Attavanai”. Every devotee is a stakeholder in the matter of upholding the temple customs and usages. This right flows out of Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

13. Since the successor can be chosen by the Heads of the Kindred Institutions, we request the following persons, namely, Thirukurungudi Jeeyar Swamy, Alwarthirunagari Jeeyar Swamy and Periya Nambigal Swamy to undertake the task of choosing the next Pontiff of Arulmighu Sri Ramanuja Jeeyar Mutt, Kallalagar Temple, Madurai. Since venerable religious personages have been entrusted with this onerous task, we consciously refrain from issuing any time- bound direction. They shall confer amongst themselves either in person or through virtual mode. We express our sincere hope that this process will be fast-tracked and the Kallalagar Temple will have a Jeeyar of eminence at the earliest. Once the choice is made, the department will formally issue proceedings recognising the same.

14. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (G.R.S.,J.) (P.M.N.,J.) 23-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SKM Note : Issue order copy today (30.10.2026)

To

1. The Secretary to Government Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009

2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE) Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600034

3. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE) Department, No.H 306 TNHB Colony, Ellis Nagar, Madurai-625016

4. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kallalagar Temple (HR and CE Department), Alagarkovil, Melur Main Road, Madurai

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. AND DR.P.MURUGAN, J. SKM WP(MD) No. 30448 of 2026 23-10-2026