News Non-Brahmins can also be temple priests, says SC

Technoglitch

Technoglitch

Core Member
The Supreme Court on Wednesday extended every citizen’s fundamental right to freedom of religion to include the said religion’s core practices. But it added that the said practices should not violate the constitutional guarantee of equality before law.

A bench headed by justice Ranjan Gogoi upheld a Hindu temple’s right to appoint priests on the basis of individual traditionally codified practices but underlined that inclusion or exclusion as per the religious code should not be based on the criteria of caste, birth or any other constitutionally unacceptable parameter. This would mean that there should be no discrimination while appointing priests.

“While the right to freedom of religion and to manage the religious affairs of any denomination is undoubtedly a fundamental right, the same is subject to public order, morality and health and further that the inclusion of such rights in Part III of the Constitution will not prevent the State from acting in an appropriate manner, in the larger public interest,” said the bench.

It added that “if the Agamas (code) in question do not proscribe any group of citizens from being appointed as Archakas (priest) on the basis of caste or class the sanctity of Article 17 or any other provision of Part III of the Constitution or even the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 will not be violated”.

While refusing to strike down a Tamil Nadu government order of May 23, 2006 that had allowed any qualified and trained Hindu to be appointed as priest in temples in the state, the SC struck a balance by saying that individual appointments should simply not be based on biases such as caste and creed.

It added that whether the religious code was violative of the Constitution would be subject to determination by a court on a case-by-case basis. This could open a floodgate of litigation from individual temples.


Non-Brahmins can also be temple priests, says SC | india | Hindustan Times
 
Technoglitch

Technoglitch

Core Member
The petitioners, an association of archakas of temples in Tamil Nadu and some individual archakas, challenged the Government Order (GO) 119 of 2006 issued by the then DMK-led government of Tamil Nadu permitting the appointment of any person, irrespective of caste, who is suitably well versed in Hindu scriptures and rituals as a priest to a Hindu temple under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The history behind this particular Government Order is an interesting one going back to the Self-Respect movements spearheaded by Periyar and others that campaigned for, among other things, temple entry for Dalits and other castes. It is discussed in much greater depth here, but the crucial purpose of the GO was to eliminate the monopoly of Brahmins as priests in the temples of Tamil Nadu. The idea was to open these positions to all suitable candidates from all castes who had obtained the appropriate training in the centres set up by the government.

The petitioners on the other hand contended that this GO went against the fundamental tenets of the Hindu religion, represented here by the agama shastras which prescribed how the rituals were to be carried out and who could be appointed as priests to Hindu temples. It was argued that following the agama shastras were “essential religious practices” protected under Article 26 of the Constitution which if deviated from on the basis of a GO, would amount to an invasion of the right of a denomination to carry out its religious practices.


The petitioners, an association of archakas of temples in Tamil Nadu and some individual archakas, challenged the Government Order (GO) 119 of 2006 issued by the then DMK-led government of Tamil Nadu permitting the appointment of any person, irrespective of caste, who is suitably well versed in Hindu scriptures and rituals as a priest to a Hindu temple under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The history behind this particular Government Order is an interesting one going back to the Self-Respect movements spearheaded by Periyar and others that campaigned for, among other things, temple entry for Dalits and other castes. It is discussed in much greater depth here, but the crucial purpose of the GO was to eliminate the monopoly of Brahmins as priests in the temples of Tamil Nadu. The idea was to open these positions to all suitable candidates from all castes who had obtained the appropriate training in the centres set up by the government.

The petitioners on the other hand contended that this GO went against the fundamental tenets of the Hindu religion, represented here by the agama shastras which prescribed how the rituals were to be carried out and who could be appointed as priests to Hindu temples. It was argued that following the agama shastras were “essential religious practices” protected under Article 26 of the Constitution which if deviated from on the basis of a GO, would amount to an invasion of the right of a denomination to carry out its religious practices.

With TN temple ruling, SC strikes fine balance between right to religion and social reform - Firstpost
 
DashMajor

DashMajor

EntMnt Knight
I don't think Education has any role to create differences. Yes education can end devotional culture.
 
scorpionking76

scorpionking76

EntMnt Knight
I doubt education can bring in a new ray of hope wrt this. Caste and religion go hand in hand. No matter how much we think and talk it all, end of the day it all come to caste and religion. That's the mentality of we Indians
 
IndianMascot

IndianMascot

Core Member
Its education only which has made people so mild that they are jelling with each other. If it would had been the same old days we would have been dominating each other on the basis of caste and religion like it happens in villages till date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top