Temple Ceremonial Worship Rights

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice S Sounthar in the case of PB Rajahamsam v. S Narayanan (2025) granted relief to the Thengalai sect (Southern cult) to conduct ceremonial worship at the Sri Devaraja Swamy temple in Kancheepuram, while rejecting the Vadagalai sect's (Northern cult) argument that this would infringe their rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What was the Background of PB Rajahamsam v. S Narayanan (2025) Case? 

About the Sects: 

• Both the Thengalai and Vadagalai sects are worshippers of Ramanujacharya, a Hindu philosopher, guru, and social reformer who was an important exponent of Vaishnavism in Hinduism. 
• The Thengalai sect follows the teachings of Manavala Mamunigal, while the Vadagalai sect follows the teachings of Vedanta Desikan, who were two different disciples of Ramanuja. 

History of the Dispute: 

• The dispute between the two sects concerned reciting verses praising their respective Gurus during ceremonial worship of God. 
• Litigations in 1882, 1915, 1939, and 1970 ended in favor of the Thengalai sect, allowing them to recite their Manthram and Prabandham during pooja services. 
• As per earlier litigations dating back to the 18th century, the southern cult was given rights of official performance of certain services to the deity. 

Present Litigation: 

• The present litigation was initiated by the Vadagalai sect, challenging a notice issued by the Executive Trustee of the temple. 
• The notice informed that only manthram of the Thengalai sect would be recited during pooja and that Vadagalai sect members could not occupy the first two rows in prayer recitation. 
• A single judge had allowed the Vadagalai sect to recite their prayer, noting that freedom of religion extended to rites and ceremonies associated with religion. 
• This order was later kept in abeyance by a division bench. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Office Holders vs. Ordinary Worshippers: 

• The Court noted that an ordinary worshipper who is not an office holder is not entitled to perform official services which are to be performed by office holders. 
• Ordinary devotees are entitled to worship God without interfering with the performance of official duties by office holders. 

On Fundamental Rights and Public Order: 

• The Court observed that allowing the northern cult to recite their manthra would affect public order, which was a reasonable restriction that could be imposed on the right to freedom of religion. 
• The Court noted that even in earlier litigations, the Vadagalai sect's right to religion was recognized and they were allowed to participate in pooja ceremonies as ordinary devotees. 
• The restriction imposed on members of the Vadagalai sect was only against chanting of manthra, which would come under the exception under Article 25(1) of the Constitution in view of public order. 

On Temple Atmosphere: 

• The Court emphasized that if individual worshippers were allowed to recite their own holy songs and poems loudly during ceremonial worship time, the conducive atmosphere in the temple would get vitiated and people would not be in a position to have peaceful worship. 
• The right to freedom of religion cannot be expanded to affect the rights of office holders and to vitiate the peaceful atmosphere in the temple. 
• If such things are permitted, it will certainly affect the right to worship available to other devotees. 

On Maintaining Order During Ceremonial Worship: 

• The Court stated that to maintain public order during ceremonial worship of God in temple, only office holders shall be allowed to perform their duties and services. 
• Ordinary worshippers can only have glimpses of God, and if at all they can recite their holy verses within their mind without making any noise so as to affect the official service by office holders. 

Final Decision: 

• The Court set aside the single judge's order, as it interfered with the rights granted by way of earlier litigation. 
• The Court allowed the petitions filed by Thengalai sect seeking protection to perform the ceremonial functions. 

What are Articles 25 and 26 of the COI? 

Article 25 of COI: 

• This Article deals with the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. It states that-  

(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. 

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law. 

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice. 

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus  

Explanation I - The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion  

Explanation II - In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. 

• It covers not only religious beliefs but also religious practices. 
• These rights are available to all persons—citizens as well as non-citizens.

Article 26 of COI: 

• Article 26 deals with freedom to manage religious affairs. It states that subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right- 

(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; 

(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; 

(c)  to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and 

(d) to administer such property in accordance with law 

• This Article protects collective freedom of religion.  
• The right guaranteed by Article 26 is the right of an organized body like the religious denomination or their sections.  
• The Supreme Court held that a religious denomination must satisfy the following three conditions:  
  • It should be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being. 
  • It should have a common organization. 
  • It should be designated by a distinctive name.