Name of the author – SHAURYA SINGH KARASI, Chandigarh University 

Name of the Editor – Anurupa Pal 

 ABSTRACT/HEADNOTE

The All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam (petitioner) filed a contempt petition against Dr. B. Chandra Mohan and Mr. J. Kumaragurubaran (respondents) alleging their disobedience of a court order dated August 5, 2021. This order, issued in a previous case, pertained to the appointment of temple priests (Archakas).

The court disposed of the writ petition related to the contempt petition by citing two Supreme Court judgments: Seshammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Nala Sangam vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The court upheld the right of individuals to challenge specific Archaka appointments while directing the state and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to adhere to the qualifications and eligibility criteria outlined in the Supreme Court judgments.

The court also granted the right to challenge any appointment that violates the law or the Supreme Court’s directives. The respondents’ counsel confirmed that no appointments had been made for a specific temple. Subsequently, the contempt petition was dismissed without any costs.

This case highlights the complexities surrounding the appointment of temple priests, emphasizing the intersection of religious practices and legal obligations. The court’s decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal mandates while safeguarding the right to challenge unfair appointments.

1. B) CASE DETAILS

1. C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE JUDGMENT

On July 18, 2022, the Madras High Court delivered a judgment in the case of ‘All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva vs Dr. B. Chandra Mohan’. This judgment stemmed from a Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by the All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam, represented by its General Secretary B.S.R. Muthukumar.

The petition targeted Dr. B. Chandra Mohan, Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, and Mr. Kumaragurubaran, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, for their alleged disobedience of the court’s August 5, 2021 order in W.M.P.No.17241 of 2021 in W.P.No.16287 of 2021. Mr P. Valliappan represented the petitioner while Mr N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, a Special Government Pleader, represented the respondents.

The judgment rested on the disposal of the related writ petition by the First Bench of the Madras High Court on June 27, 2022. This order referenced the Supreme Court judgments in Seshammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [1972 (2) SCC 11] and Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2016 (2) SCC 725], emphasizing the specific qualifications and eligibility criteria for appointing Archakas.

The court closed the writ petition while preserving the candidates’ right to challenge individual Archaka appointments, if necessary. The court directed the State and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to adhere to the qualifications and eligibility stipulated in the Supreme Court judgments for Archaka appointments. The judgment also allowed any aggrieved party to challenge appointments that contravene the law or the Supreme Court directives.

The learned Special Government Pleader, Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, informed the court that no appointments had been made in the R3 temple.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam filed a Contempt Petition against Dr. B. Chandra Mohan and Mr. J. Kumaragurubaran, alleging they disobeyed a Madras High Court order issued on August 5, 2021. This order, stemming from a writ petition (W.P.No.16287 of 2021), dealt with the appointment of Archakas (priests) and referred to Supreme Court rulings in the Seshammal and Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Nala Sangam cases.

The High Court, in its June 27, 2022 judgment, closed the writ petition while preserving the right of candidates to challenge individual appointments. It directed the State and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to adhere to the Supreme Court’s prescribed qualifications for Archakas. Additionally, individuals could legally challenge appointments deemed unlawful.

During the contempt proceedings, the respondents’ legal representative confirmed no appointments were made at the Arulmigu Kolanjiappar Thiru Kovil temple. Consequently, the contempt petition was closed without costs.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

•  Whether the respondents’ actions constitute a violation of the court order issued on August 5, 2021?
• ​Whether the respondents’ conduct meets the legal definition of contempt of court under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?
• ​Whether the Supreme Court judgments in Seshammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, cited in the order, relevant and binding in this case?
• What actions should the court take regarding the alleged contempt? 

F)PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

•  The petitioners asserted that the respondents, Dr B. Chandra Mohan and Mr J. Kumaragurubaran, had flouted the court’s injunction of August 5, 2021, in W.M.P. No. 17241 of 2021 within W.P. No. 16287 of 2021, by neglecting to adhere to the court’s directives.
• The petitioners likely highlighted the legal importance of respondents upholding court orders and directives. They may have argued that noncompliance weakens the authority of the judiciary and creates a damaging precedent for future cases.
• The petitioners emphasized the paramount importance of compliance with court orders for maintaining the rule of law and upholding justice. They may have argued that any disregard for court orders must be addressed with appropriate consequences to preserve the integrity of the judicial system.
• The petitioners likely urged the court to impose punitive measures on the respondents for their alleged contemptuous actions. These measures could include fines, censure, or any other penalties deemed suitable by the court.

  G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

•  Mr NRR. Arun Natarajan, the Special Government Pleader representing the respondents, asserted that the temple named in the contempt petition (Arulmigu Kolanjiappar Thiru Kovil, Cuddalore District) had made no appointments. This declaration aimed to prove the respondents’ compliance with court directives and to refute the petitioner’s allegation of disobedience.
•  The respondents potentially argued for the dismissal of the contempt petition due to the lack of any appointments that could be deemed as violating the court’s order. They likely emphasized that since no breaches occurred, there was no justification for further legal action or punishments against them.
• The respondents may have further contended against any costs or penalties being imposed on them, given their adherence to the court’s directives. They likely argued that the absence of any wrongdoing warranted the dismissal of the contempt petition without any financial burden being placed upon them.

  H) JUDGMENT

On July 18, 2022, the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice Anita Sumanth, delivered a judgment concerning a contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petition was brought by the All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva against Dr. B. Chandra Mohan, alleging disobedience of a court order passed on August 5, 2021, in a previous case (W.M.P.No.17241 of 2021 in W.P.No.16287 of 2021). Mr P. Valliappan represented the petitioner, while Mr NRR. Arun Natarajan, the Special Government Pleader, represented the respondents. In response, the Hon’ble First Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition related to the contempt petition on June 27, 2022, with a detailed order. This order heavily relied on Supreme Court judgments in the cases of Seshammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu [1972 (2) SCC 11] and Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2016 (2) SCC 725]. The writ petition was closed, allowing candidates to challenge individual appointments of Archakas if necessary.

The State and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department were instructed to strictly adhere to the qualifications and eligibility criteria for appointing Archakas, as outlined in the aforementioned Supreme Court judgments. Individuals aggrieved by appointments violating the law or court directives were granted the liberty to challenge them legally.

Mr NRR. Arun Natarajan, the Special Government Pleader representing the respondents, informed the court that no appointments had been made at Arulmigu Kolanjiappar Thiru Kovil in Cuddalore District. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed without imposing any costs.

CONCLUSION AND COMMENTS

The Madras High Court presided over by Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth, dismissed the contempt petition initiated by All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam against Dr. B. Chandra Mohan and Mr. J. Kumaragurubaran, affirming the candidates’ right to contest specific appointments of Archakas (temple priests).

The court instructed the State and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to adhere strictly to the qualifications and eligibility guidelines established by the Supreme Court in the cases of Seshammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam vs. State of Tamil Nadu.

Any party aggrieved by appointments that contradict the established norms or Supreme Court directives may legally challenge them, as per the court’s ruling.

Mr NRR. Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader representing the respondents, disclosed to the court that no appointments had occurred at the specific temple in question, Arulmigu Kolanjiappar Thiru Kovil in Cuddalore District.

Consequently, the contempt petition was closed without incurring any expenses.

This judgment underscores the court’s dedication to upholding legal principles and guaranteeing compliance with the rulings of higher tribunals, while also offering remedies for those impacted by unlawful or inconsistent appointments.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred 

1. Seshammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1972 (2) SCC

Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
2. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971