Dismissed

Pakshi Sivarajan.S v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Madras HC7 Jan 2016WP(MD)/23256/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions under Article 226 challenging the Mahakumbabishekam of Ramanathaswamy Temple. The court dismissed petitions, rejecting grounds of damaged idols and inauspicious dates, though directed the Executive Officer to repair damage.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed; Executive Officer directed to repair idol damage before the ceremony.

Pakshi Sivarajan.S Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

¶2

Reserved on : 22.12.2015 & Delivered on : 07.01.2016

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

and

¶6

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶7

Writ Petition (MD) Nos.23256 and 23305 of 2015 and MP(MD).Nos.1 and 1 of 2015

¶8

Pakshi Sivarajan,S ...Petitioner in WP(MD) No.23256/2015

¶9

K.Ramamoorthy ...Petitioner in WP(MD) No.23305/2015

¶10

¶11

1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department Fort.St.George, Chennai-9. ...R1 in WP(MD)No. 23256/2015

¶12

2.The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort.St.George, Chennai-9. ...R1 in WP(MD)No. 23305/2015

¶13

3.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious

¶14

& Charitable Endowments Department, Numgambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

¶15

4.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ramanatha Swamy Temple, Rameswaram, Ramanthapuram District.

¶16

...R2 & R3 in both Wps

¶17

5.Fit Person of Board of Trustees, Arulmigu Ramanatha Swamy Temple, Rameswaram, Ramanthapuram District.

¶18

...R4 in WP(MD)No. 23256/2015

¶19

PETITIONS under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Mandamus (i) forbearing the respondents from performing the Mahakumbabishekam of Sri Ramanathaswamy Thirukoil, Rameswaram on 20.1.2016 or any subsequent date without restoring/ replacing/repairing the idols by adhering to the tenets and (ii) forbearing the respondents from performing the Kumbabishekam for Lord Ramanatha Swamy temple, Rameswaram on 20.1.2016.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners :

¶21

Mr.K.Yashod Vardhan, SC for Mr.K.Chandrasekaran [WP(MD)No.23256/2015] and

¶22

Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for Mr.R.Senthilkumar [WP(MD).No.23305/2015]

¶23

For Respondents 1 to 3 in both WPs : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, SGP

¶24

COMMON ORDER

¶25

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J

¶26

The petitioners have come up with these writ petitions seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to forbear from performing the Mahakumbabishekam of Sri Ramanathaswamy Temple, Rameswaram, scheduled to be held on 20.1.2016.

¶27

We have heard Mr.K.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the first writ petition, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the second writ petition and Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶28

Though the prayers made by the petitioners in both these writ petitions are almost identical, the grounds on which the petitioners seek the postponement of Kumbabishekam, are completely different. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.23305 of 2015 seeks the postponement of the Kumbabishekam, primarily on three grounds namely

¶29

(a) that a consecration committee popularly known as Thiruppani Committee has not yet been formed;

¶30

(b) that the decision to fix the kumbabhishekam on 20.1.2016 was not taken by the Trust Board or the Fit Person, but was dictated by the powers that be, to suit their own requirements; and

¶31

(c) that January 20, 2016 is astrologically inauspicious and the idol of Ambal Parvathavardhini is also in a damaged condition.

¶32

We do not think that we can sustain any of these three grounds. No statutory prescription contained either in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the HR & CE Act, 1959) nor the Rules framed thereunder is cited before us by the petitioner in support of the first ground.

¶33

The reliance placed in this regard, upon Rule 53 of the Management and Preservation of Properties Rules, is completely misconceived. The said Rule is intended to regulate the receipt and expenditure of donations in temples for the purpose of renovation or for other purposes. Since many of the temples, coming under the control of the Department, have a Board of Trustees, the said Rule was enacted to ensure that the Board of Trustees is made accountable for all the donations received and the manner in which they are expended. In this case, there are no allegations that either the Board of Trustees or the Executive Officer of the temple is receiving donations, but not properly accounting for the same and are also expending the same without any type of control. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, the first ground of attack cannot be accepted.

¶34

The second ground of attack is meaningless. The Board of Trustees has not come up with any objection on the ground that the date fixed for the performance of Kumbabishekam has been thrust upon them by the powers that be, either worldly or heavenly.

¶35

Assuming that a date for the performance of the consecration has been fixed, only to suit the rulers, even then, we do not know how judicial intervention is possible. A peep into the history of Tamil Nadu would show that several temples were constructed and consecrated by Kings, not necessarily with a view to bring prosperity to the ruled, but to ensure that their dynasty continued to rule forever. Some temples were actually constructed and consecrated for the purpose of ensuring victory for the ruler in times of war. After democracy replaced monarchy, elections have taken the place of war and the tradition of propitiating certain Gods and Goddesses for the purpose of winning, appears to have continued.

¶36

Perhaps, if a country is ruled by non-believers, they may leave it entirely to the wisdom of the persons in management of temples to decide all these matters. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to venture into these questions and decide whether the date fixed for the ceremony was good for the ruler or for the ruled, if not for the Almighty.

¶37

The third ground of attack that the date is astrologically inauspicious, is to be stated only to be rejected. We do not know for whom January 20, 2016 is inauspicious. Theists believe that God transcends all dimensions including time and space. In his great epic 'Ramayan', the emperor of poets - Kamban described the Lord as "fhyKk; fzf;Fk; ePj;j fhuzd;". Therefore, for One, who transcends time, space and all limitations within which the universe functions, no date and time could be inauspicious. For mortals, what is auspicious for one is inauspicious for another and vice versa. Many times, no two astrologers, like lawyers and doctors, agree with each other.

¶38

Therefore, apart from the fact that it is beyond the call of our duty under Article 226 of The Constitution of India to examine astrological questions, it is also beyond our comprehension to decide whether a particular date is auspicious or inauspicious. Hence, W.P.(MD). No.23305 of 2015 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is also dismissed.

¶39

Coming to the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.23256 of 2015, the grounds on which the petitioner seeks the relief of postponement of the Kumbabishekam, are based upon Sastriac texts. It is claimed by the petitioner that Rameswaram is considered to be one of the twelve Jyothir Linga Kshetrams and that the Shrine stands as an example of the confluence of Saivaite, Vaishnavaite and Saktham Sects. According to the petitioner, the temple of Sri Ramanathaswamy was built and all the rituals and festivals including daily worships are performed in accordance with 'Karana Agama', which is one of the 28 Siva Agamas.

¶40

It is also claimed by the petitioner that he had come up with an earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.7627 of 2010 seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Executive Officer and the Chairman of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Board of Trustees to obtain permission from the Government for carrying out repairs to the damaged golden idol of Lord Ramanathaswamy. In that

¶41

writ petition, the Executive Officer of the temple filed a counter affidavit seeking reasonable time and Government sanction to carry out the repairs.

¶42

According to the petitioner, the Government consulted Thiru Muthiah Stapathi, a leading Sculptor with profound knowledge of Agamas and Shilpa Sastra. The petitioner claims that apart from the golden idol of Lord Ramanathaswamy, there are also other idols, which are in a damaged condition. In paragraph 5 of his affidavit in support of the present writ petition, the petitioner listed out the disfigurements allegedly noticed on some of the idols. The relevant portion of para 5 of his affidavit is as follows :

¶43

"1. The Moolavar of Somaskandar is disfigured as well as the Murthi of consort.

¶44

The left leg of old Ambal vigraham has thinned.

¶45

The vigraham of Bhoodevi is mutilated (this is now repaired).

¶46

The Mazhu held on the left hand of Palliarai Murthi is broken (now repaired).

¶47

The silver plates adorning the steps of Artha Mandapam (namely Panchakshra Padi) is damaged.

¶48

The lotus held in the hands of Valli and Deivanai are broken.

¶49

The golden kavacham of Goddess Parvatha Vardhini is torn and damaged.

¶50

The vahanas are all not in good shape. 9. The face of Bali

¶51

Murthy and Ambal inside the Viswanathar Sannithi are completely damaged (now repaired).

¶52

The placement of Sapthamatha should be changed.

¶53

The hand of Goddess Varaghi is broken. 12. The crown of

¶54

Goddess Manonmani is broken."

¶55

It is further claimed by the petitioner that the report submitted by Thiru. Muthiah Stapathi was not brought to the notice of this Court in the first writ petition filed by him. But the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 23.6.2011, merely directing the Executive Officer to undertake the repair work and to complete it within four months.

¶56

The petitioner addressed a letter dated 29.11.2014 to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department requesting him either to carry out repairs or to replace the idols. The Commissioner sent a reply dated 4.2.2015 informing the petitioner that steps are being taken. But it was reported in the newspapers that the idol of the Consort of Sri Ramanathaswamy namely Goddess Parvathavardhini is totally damaged and her face disfigured.

¶57

Therefore, the petitioner sent a letter dated 16.12.2015 claiming that the idol has been disfigured by persons interested in removing the valuable jewellery such as diamond studded thali, diamond necklace, etc. According to the petitioner, several jeweleries that were part of the idol of Goddess Parvathavardhini were included in the property register of the year 1972. But, they disappeared from the register in the year 1995. The petitioner claims that the installation of the idol of Goddess Parvathavardhini was by a human being namely the King of Vijayanagaram and hence, it is a sin to offer worship to the idol, unless https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ it is replaced. The petitioner further claims that the sanctum of Goddess Parvathavardhini was consecrated by one Muthu Vijaya Ragunatha Sethupathy, the King of Ramnad in the 18th Century after replacing the idol.

¶58

Quoting a passage from the Tagore Law Lectures by B.K. Mukherjea on Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts (2006 Edition Page 156) and also relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Seshammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 1972 SC 1586] and N. Adithyan Vs. The Travancore Devaswom Board [AIR 2002 SC 3538] wherein a reference has been made to the Brahmapurana, it is claimed by the petitioner that without replacing a mutilated, broken or burnt idol, a consecration ceremony should not be performed.

¶59

The petitioner has also placed reliance upon verses 27 to 30 in Chapter 'Jeernoddharana Vidhi Padalam' of 'Karanagama' in support of his contention that wherever the head or any limb of the idol is mutilated, the same has to be discarded and a new one installed. Reliance is also placed upon an essay titled 'Jeernoddharana in Saivaite Temples' by Sri.S. Arunasundara Sivachariyar wherein it is stated that the worship of a mutilated idol could only bring disaster. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon Verse No.25 of 'Uthara Kaamika Agamam', translated by Alloor Viswanatha Sivachariyar and published by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department to the effect that if insult is caused to eyebrows, eyelids or face, such an idol should be discarded (Visarjanam).

¶60

The petitioner has further claimed that the Tamil months of 'Thai' and 'Masi', particularly of this year, are astrologically inauspicious with Jupiter in Virgo in a debilitated position. According to the petitioner, the 8th place from the Lagna, on which, the consecration ceremony is scheduled to be held, should be clear without there being any constellation. According to the petitioner, the performance of the consecration ceremony in this constellation would spell doom to the Kartha (performer).

¶61

We have carefully considered the pleadings and the submissions.

¶62

As could be seen from what we have indicated in paragraphs 11 onwards, the main grievance of the writ petitioner is two fold, namely (i) that the idol of the Ambal Parvathavardhni is in a damaged condition and hence as per the 'Jeernodharana Vidhi Padalam' of 'Karana Agama', the consecration ceremony cannot take place without replacing the idol; and (ii) that the time and date fixed for the performance of the Kumbabhishekam is inauspicious.

¶63

In support of his first contention, the petitioner places reliance upon two texts, namely (i) 'Jeernoddharana Vidhi Padalam' of 'Karana Agama' and (ii) 'Uthara Kaamika Agamam'. Therefore, it is necessary to have a small prelude.

¶64

As pointed out by this Court in Sona. Krishnamoorthy vs. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department {2009 (4) CTC 20} , the protection of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution extends to rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of a religion. As to what constitutes an essential part of a religion or a religious practice has to be tested by Courts with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion. This would also include practices which are regarded by the community as part of its religion.

¶65

24.The term 'agama' primarily means tradition. It appears that each of the six indigenous religions, namely, Saivam, Vaishnavam, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Saaktham, Kaumaram, Sauram and Gaanaapatyam had its own agamas, when those

¶66

religions maintained independent identities. But most of them have been lost after their unification by Adi Sankara. What survives today are only 28 Saiva agamas and two principal Vaishnavite Agamas. It appears that saiva agamas are classified into 4 types namely Siddhantha saivagamas, Paasupatha Saivagamas, Kaapalika Saivagamas and Kaalamukha Saivagamas. All the 28 saivagamas, on the basis of some of which alone, most of the temples in Tamilnadu are built, belong to Siddhantha saivagamas. 25.

¶67

All the Agamas are not available now in full and complete form. Therefore, opinions are formed even by experts only on the basis of available material. As a consequence, the opinions are divided. Just as every law is capable of being interpreted by lawyers in different ways, Agamas also get interpreted differently by different scholars.

¶68

The foundation of the case of the writ petitioner is that the temple of Sri Ramanathaswamy follows the 'Karana Agama' and that the said agama contains certain prescriptions which should be followed scrupulously.

¶69

But, there is no uniformity of opinion even on this issue. In the 16th Century, there lived a great saint by name Appayya Dikshitar, who was also a great scholar. He has written a treatise known as "Sri Sivarchana Chandrika". In this treatise, saint Appayya Dikshitar has stated that there is nothing wrong in looking into one agama, even while adhering to another agama, whenever it is warranted, provided both the Agamas belong to the same classification. In other words, if a particular agama that falls under the category of Siddhantha Saivagama is followed, there is no express prohibition to follow the prescriptions contained in another agama, if that agama also falls within the classification of Siddhantha Saivagama. But it must be pointed out here that this opinion of Saint Appayya Dikshitar is not strictly in relation to consecration of temples.

¶70

The aforesaid opinion of Saint Appayya Dikshitar appears to be fortified by the prescriptions contained in verses 106 and 107 of Tantraavatara Padalam of Poorva Bhaga of 'Kaamika Agama', it is stated as follows:

¶71

yena tantrena chaarabdam karshanadhi archananthakam tena sarvam prakartavyam na kuryaatu anya tantratah kaarayeth anya tantrena noktam cheththu viseshatah

¶72

The meaning of the above verse is that if from the tilling of the soil till the performance of the daily worship, if a particular agama had been followed, the prescriptions contained in the same agama shall be followed for everything else. But, in respect of matters for which there is no specific prescription, the other agamas can always be followed. Keeping in mind the above rule, if we have a look at Kaamika Agama, it is seen that Kaamika Agama does not mandate the replacing of the deity in all cases.

¶73

It is true that in 'Jeernoddharana Vidhi Padalam' of 'Karana Agama', there are certain rules. The first rule is, jeernam tasyaiva bimbasya uddhaaram Cha adhunaasrunu siro bahu tatha padau heene syath parivarjayeth https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bhru rekha chakshu rekha cha aasya rekha cha naasika yeteshaam cha kshayam drushtva pratimaam parivarjayeth

¶74

" If any one of the parts of the body, such as the head, the hands or legs, has been dismembered, the idol should not be used any more. If the eye-brows or the features of the face of the idol have become damaged, the idol should be replaced."

¶75

But, the above rule is not without exception. In Anukarmavidhi found in the 32nd Chapter of Kaamika Agama, it is stated that if an idol has been installed by certain categories of persons, it need not be replaced even if found damaged. The verse reads as follows: Asuraihi Munibhih Devaihi Tatva Vidhbihi Pratishtitam Jeernam Vaap yathavaa Bhagnam Vidhinaapi Na Chaalayeth

¶76

Therefore, it is clear that if an idol has been installed by demons or sages or gods or persons of divine wisdom, those idols need not be replaced even if they are in a damaged condition. This rule found in Kaamika Agama is a special rule. As in the case of statutory prescriptions, a general rule must yield to the special rule. Interestingly, the Latin maxim generalia specialibus non derogant is applicable not merely to statutes but also to agamas. (In sanskrit grammer there is a rule, which appears to be more clear than its Latin counter part. It reads: Prakalpya cha apavaada vishayam tathaha utsargaha abhi nivishathe - A general rule will occupy only that space which is not intended to be occupied by a special rule).

¶77

It appears that the writ petitioner is aware of the above special rule found in Kaamika Agama. This is why, without quoting the above special rule, the petitioner has pleaded that the idol of Parvathavardhini was installed by the King of Ramanathapuram in the 18th Century. But, we do not know whether the said averment is factually correct. Even if it is factually correct, we do not know whether Sri Raghunatha Sethupathi, the King of Ramand, who installed the idol in the 18th Century, would not fall under any one of the categories mentioned in the above special rule. Therefore, it is not possible for us to accept the first ground on which the petitioner seeks postponement of the kumbabhishekam.

¶78

However, we are obliged to record one fact. While disposing of an earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.7627 of 2010, by an order dated 23.06.2011, this Court had recorded an undertaking from the Executive Officer of the temple (in paragraph 25) to the effect that the damages to the idols would be rectified.

¶79

As a matter of fact, a similar contingency arose in respect of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukovil, Thiruchendur, on the occasion of its kumbabishekam in July, 2009. A writ petition was filed by one M.Chidambara Vadhiyar, complaining that the right big toe of the idol of the presiding deity (moola vigraham) was in a damaged condition. A Division Bench of this Court, presided over by one of us ( VRSJ ), disposed of the said writ petition on 18.06.2009. On the same date on which the writ petition was disposed of, a devotee offered to make the feet of the deity in gold plates so that the damage to the idol would stood rectified as per the sastras. Taking note of the aforesaid parallel, we expect the Executive Officer to honour his commitment made to this Court in W.P.(MD) No.7627 of 2010, by taking necessary action either for repairing the idol or for having a golden kavacham made, before the performance of the kumbabhishekam. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶80

In so far as the second ground is concerned, we have already indicated that the Almighty is claimed by all believers to transcend all dimensions, including space and time. If the omnipotent, omnipresent and the omniscient transcends time and space, there is no question of a particular time or day being auspicious or inauspicious.

¶81

Moreover, the Uttara Kaamika Agama appears to stipulate that when a kumbabhishekam is performed for a second, third, fourth or a successive time, the prescriptions regarding auspicious month, day, time and tithi need not be followed strictly. The relevant verse from Uttara Kaamika Agama reads as follows:

¶82

natithir nacha nakshatram na vaaradhi amsha kaadikaah

¶83

kaalapakshaam vinaa kuriyathu seshani anyani su vrataah

¶84

The meaning of the verse is that when a consecration is necessitated due to certain circumstances, it is not necessary to fix the date, on the basis of the auspicious nature of the paksha, month, tithi and star.

¶85

In Uttara Kaarana Agama, it is prescribed that if prathista is done on an Ekathasi day, the person responsible for its performance may get eight types of fortunes. The Purva Kaarana Agama prohibits only certain tithis, such as prathamai, ashtami, navami, chathurthi and chathurdasi, for the performance of prathishta, but it does not exclude Ekathasi thithi. The relevant verse in Lingasthapana Vidhi of Purva Kaarana Agama reads as under:

¶86

Sukla pakshe chaturthi cha ashtami cha chaturdasi

¶87

Navami pratipat chaiva pancha tithi ashubha smruta

¶88

Therefore, the objection that January, 20th falls on Ekathasi thithi also does not find support even from Karana Agama.

¶89

Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, attempted to make submissions on the constellation of planets on January 20th, 2016 and their effect. But, we do not think that a court can go into such questions. However we cannot resist our temptation to record here the fact that according to the Ramayana, most of the planets were arrested and enslaved by Ravana and all the nine planets were at his command. Eventually, what happened to him is a matter of common knowledge. Therefore, we will not examine the case on the basis of the planetary positions on January 20th, 2016. We will only leave it to the petitioner to do research on the planetary position that prevailed on the date of his filing of the writ petition.

¶90

To sum up, we are of the considered view that none of the issues raised by the petitioners is capable of being examined on any judicially prescribed standards or parameters. Therefore, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, as we have indicated in the last portion of paragraph 34 above, the Executive Officer shall take immediate action for rectification of the damage to the idol. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

¶91

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶92

//True Copy//

¶93

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶94

Sub Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶95

¶96

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai-9.

¶97