Latest news with #TamilNaduLegislativeAssembly
The Hindu
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
How a high-level panel laid the blueprint for inclusive Archaka appointments to Tamil Nadu's HR&CE temples
Nearly 55 years ago, on December 2, 1970, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed a historic amendment to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act, 1959, formally abolishing the hereditary priesthood system and opening the doors for qualified individuals from all castes to become temple priests. However, the intent of this reform was not fully realised due to the absence of a clear framework and persistent legal challenges. Although the amended provisions came into effect the following year, no enabling mechanism was put in place to ensure the appointment of trained Archakas (temple priests). The matter continued to face judicial scrutiny until the Supreme Court, in its 2002 ruling in the N. Adithayan vs Travancore Devaswom Board case, held that caste-based restrictions on the appointment of Archakas were unconstitutional, emphasising that only qualification and training should determine eligibility. On May 23, 2006, soon after the M. Karunanidhi government was formed in Tamil Nadu, it chose to act on this Supreme Court order. The government issued an order allowing any Hindu, regardless of caste, to become an Archaka in temples administered by the HR&CE department, provided they had the required training. To implement this order, it constituted a seven-member high-level committee on June 10, 2006, under the chairmanship of Justice (Retired) A.K. Rajan. The committee was tasked with framing recommendations regarding the age and education criteria, syllabus design, training duration, and suitable locations for setting up Archaka training institutes. Course of action The committee undertook an extensive consultative process. It held regular meetings, engaged with heads of various Mutts and Agama scholars, and studied the functioning of private training centres. Field visits to major temples were conducted to interact with practising Archakas and gather insights. The committee also reviewed the legal provisions governing Archaka appointments. It noted that while the HR&CE Act, 1959, does not lay down specific qualifications for the post, Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules provides guidance for such appointments. The committee also referred to a series of Supreme Court judgments, including the Seshammal case (1972), Narayana Dikshitalu case (1996), and Adithayan case (2002), that affirmed the primacy of Agamic rules in temples constructed or maintained according to Agamic traditions. The committee extensively examined various Agamas and observed in its review that nowhere in the Agamas, it is stated that only persons of a particular caste can perform pujas. There is no authority supporting caste-based restrictions on who can serve as Archakas in Saivite, Vaishnavite, or Amman temples. Pointing out that a particular caste or descendants of a particular caste had been performing pujas in the past, it cannot be said that they alone have the right to perform pujas, the committee observed, adding the essential qualification for an Archaka is knowledge of Agama practices specific to the temple, the correct method of performing rituals (including daily and special poojas), and mastery of the required mantras. Eligibility criteria Proficiency in temple procedures, from opening to closing, is considered the core eligibility criterion. However, the committee observed that denominational alignment remains necessary. It said only Saivites should serve in Saivite temples and Vaishnavites in Vaishnavite temples. The committee laid down elaborate eligibility criteria for Hindus from all castes to be appointed as Archakas. It suggested that candidates seeking admission to Archaka training centres should be between 14 and 24 years of age and have completed Class VIII to serve in HR&CE managed temples. A separate training institute was proposed for individuals above 24 years to facilitate them in undergoing training to serve in temples outside the HR&CE control. They should have completed Class V. The committee recommended establishing Saivite training centres in Chennai, Madurai, Palani, Tiruchendur, Kumbakonam, Thiruvannamalai, and Perur. Vaishnavite centres were proposed for Chennai, Srirangam, Kancheepuram, Alagarkoil (Madurai), and Srivilliputhur. A special centre for trainees above 24 years of age was suggested at Tiruchirapalli. A one-year training course would qualify candidates to serve as basic Archakas in small temples or assistants in larger temples. A more advanced three-year course would be required to perform elaborate rituals and special pujas. Saivite Archakas will be classified as Archaka, Gurukal, and Senior Gurukal, while Vaishnavite Archakas as Bala Pattar, Pattar, and Pattacharyar. Those with one-year training may serve as Archakas/Bala Pattars in small temples or assist in larger temples under senior guidance. Three-year trained individuals may serve as Gurukals/Pattars, handling all rituals under the supervision of senior Archakas. Senior Gurukal/Pattacharyar will be a promotional post, based on experience and seniority. Trainees must maintain strict discipline, including vegetarianism, abstention from alcohol, and wearing simple white attire or a standard uniform during the training period, the committee said. The syllabus proposed by the committee includes training in Agamic procedures, Tamil devotional literature, Grantham, astrology, temple duties, and social values. The curriculum prioritises Tamil as the language of worship and instruction, while ensuring that Sanskrit texts are translated and taught. Training modules would be tailored for one-year, three-year, and refresher courses with a focus on practical ritual performance. Examinations will be conducted annually by the Commissioner for one-year, three-year, and refresher courses, with separate patterns for Saivite and Vaishnavite sections. Certificates and degrees issued will qualify candidates for appointment as Archakas in HR&CE-managed temples, including those from recognised private institutions. Existing Archakas without formal certification need only complete the refresher course to continue service, the committee said. It also insisted that admissions must follow the communal reservation policy of the Tamil Nadu government. To support trainees aged below 24 years, the committee recommended a monthly stipend of ₹500, along with food, uniforms, and accommodation, free of cost. Following the committee's report, between 2007 and 2008, 206 individuals from various castes were trained as priests for major Saivite and Vaishnavite temples. However, the training programme was discontinued after the first batch graduated. Nearly a decade later, T. Marichamy became the first among the trained priests to be appointed by the HR&CE department, taking charge at the Ayyappan Temple in Tallakulam, Madurai.
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why did Madras High Court stay laws taking away T.N. Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors?
The story so far: The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed a series of Bills for amending the laws applicable to various State-run universities. The primary aim of the amendments was to transfer from the Governor (in his/her capacity as the Chancellor) to the State government, the power to appoint Vice Chancellors to those universities. When the Governor sat over the Bills, without granting assent, for long, the State government approached the Supreme Court and obtained an order on April 8, 2025. Taking serious note of the enormous delay in grant of assent, the top court ordered that the Bills would be deemed to have been granted assent. By virtue of the Supreme Court's order, the amendment Bills became Acts. Subsequently, Kutty alias K. Venkatachalapathy, an advocate based in Tirunelveli, filed a public interest litigation petition before the Madras High Court on May 12, 2025, challenging the constitutional validity of those amendment Acts. A summer vacation Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan entertained the PIL petition and passed an interim order on May 21, 2025. The Bench stayed the operation of the amendment Acts to the extent to which they take away the power of appointment of Vice Chancellors from the hands of the Chancellor and vest the same in the State government. What is the reasoning given by the Division Bench for staying the amended laws? Authoring the verdict for the Division Bench, Justice Swaminathan pointed out that the amendment Acts do not make any change to the position of the Governor being the Chancellor of State universities. They only take away the Chancellor's power to appoint Vice Chancellors to the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Anna University, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and so on. The Bench found the amendment Acts to be repugnant to Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018. It pointed out that the UGC Regulations clearly state that only the Visitor/Chancellor could appoint a Vice Chancellor from among names recommended by a search-cum-selection committee and therefore, the amendment Acts conferring such a power on the State government, instead of the Governor, were directly in conflict with 2018 Regulations. Can UGC Regulations prevail over State Acts? The Division Bench said, the Supreme Court had already confirmed the primacy of the UGC Regulations over the State laws. In Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi versus State of Gujarat (2022), the top court had said: 'It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Sections 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the UGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said Act, shall be laid before each House of Parliament. Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations become part of the Act.' A Bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagaratna of the Supreme Court had also observed: 'In case of any conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, the Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject 'education' is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, any appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.' The ruling was subsequently followed by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli in State of West Bengal versus Anindya Sundar Das wherein they wrote: 'In view of the decision in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi, even if the provisions of the Act allowed the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State Government, it would be in violation of the UGC Regulations. The Regulations become part of the statute framed by Parliament and will prevail.' After citing two more Supreme Court verdicts on the same lines, the Division Bench led by Justice Swaminathan said: 'When repugnancy between the impugned amendment Acts and the UGC Regulation is obvious and admitted, it is our judicial duty to apply the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in as many as four recent decisions.' Do courts have power to stay the operation of Acts? On the next question as to whether a court could stay the operation of laws passed by the legislature, Justice Swaminathan said, the answer lay in Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil versus State of Maharashtra. In that judgement, the Supreme Court had said: 'Normally an interim order is not passed to stultify statutory provisions. However, there is no absolute rule to restrain interim orders being passed when an enactment is ex facie unconstitutional or contrary to the law laid down by this Court.' Justice Swaminathan also recalled that the Supreme Court itself had on January 12, 2021 stayed the operation of the three farm laws, passed by the Parliament, which led to a national outcry. 'Interestingly, Shri (senior counsel representing the Tamil Nadu Higher Education department in the present PIL petition), who is now opposing the grant of interim relief was the counsel for a set of petitioners therein and welcomed the proposal to stay the implementation of the farm laws,' the judge wrote. Can a summer vacation bench pass such orders? Though Advocate General P.S. Raman as well as Mr. Wilson had urged the Division Bench to grant suffiicient time for the State government to file its counter affidavit and not take up the stay application for hearing during summer vacation sitting, the Division Bench rejected their plea. 'It is true that the High Court is on vacation and that we are sitting as Vacation Bench Judges. To us, it should not make any difference. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India has observed that court vacation sittings should be rechristened 'partial working days'. We take inspiration from the said observation. Judges can be on vacation, courts should not be on vacation. Access to justice should always be available. When an advocate complains that an unconstitutional legislation has been passed, we cannot shut our eyes. That is why we propose to intervene then and there,' the Bench said. Pointing out that they had granted a week's time for the State to file its written response, the Bench observed: 'The unconstitutionality and repugnancy vitiating the impugned (under challenge) amendment Acts is so glaring and obvious that we cannot shut our eyes. We are convinced that the impugned amendments are ex-facie unconstitutional. If an unconstitutional process is allowed to proceed, it would cause irreparable injury and public interest would suffer.' Does the High Court order amount to reviewing Supreme Court's verdict in Governor's assent case? The Division Bench, further, took strong exception to an argument that the High Court's interference with the amendment Acts would virtually amount to reviewing Supreme Court's April 8, 2025 verdict in Governor's assent case. 'Shri made a preposterous submission that we were virtually reviewing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Tamil Nadu versus The Governor of Tamil Nadu. No submission can be more outrageous than this. We are mindful of our position. We know that we have to give the highest respect to any decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We do not need lectures from Shri on this score. We believe in judicial discipline. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision was not concerned with the constitutionality of the impugned provisions.' The Bench went on to state: 'When the learned Advocate General at one point claimed that the petitioner's Senior Counsel is merely reiterating the contentions advanced in the said decision (April 8, 2025 ruling), we called upon the learned Advocate General to draw our attention to the relevant paragraphs, where the contentions now advanced stood rejected. The learned Advocate General made a vain attempt and subsequently gave up this objection altogether.' 'When we notice that the impugned amending Acts fall foul of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are unable to mechanically adjourn the proceedings. It is this primary consideration that impels us to grant interim relief,' the Bench concluded.
Indian Express
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Madras HC stays Tamil Nadu amendments on vice-chancellor appointments despite state's objection
In a significant intervention amid an escalating tug-of-war between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor's office, the Madras High Court Wednesday stayed the operation of a series of amendments passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly last year that sought to make the state government, instead of the Governor, the appointing authority for vice-chancellors of state-run universities. A vacation Bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan issued the interim order after a marathon hearing that stretched until 7 pm, rejecting the state's request to defer the matter until after summer vacation. The ruling came in response to a PIL filed by K Venkatachalapathy, a practicing advocate from Tirunelveli and a Bharatiya Janata Party leader. The PIL challenged the constitutional validity of the state amendments to 10 university Acts on 56 grounds, primarily arguing that the changes were repugnant to Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, which prescribe the process for Vice-Chancellor appointments. The petitioner contended that the legislation compromised the autonomy of universities and allowed for excessive political interference. Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu asserted that the role of the Governor—as Chancellor of State universities—ought to remain apolitical, much like the Speaker in a legislature. 'Universities must be insulated from political power,' he said. 'The chancellor, being above politics, should continue to guide the academic institutions free of government overreach.' The court's interim stay sparked strong objections from the state government. Advocate-General P S Raman and senior counsel P Wilson, representing the Chief Secretary and Higher Education Secretary, argued there was no urgency warranting a hearing during the court's vacation. 'Only the process for appointments has begun. The last date to receive applications is June 5. The apprehension that something will happen tomorrow is unfounded,' the AG said. They pointed out that the state had already filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court, seeking to consolidate all similar PILs challenging the amendments. The apex court, according to Wilson, had orally instructed the state to inform the HC about the pending transfer plea. 'The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of the broader issue. For the High Court to press ahead despite this is judicial impropriety,' Wilson told the Bench. 'We are being compelled to argue here even as the matter awaits consideration before the CJI.' The Higher Education Secretary, C Samayamoorthy, also submitted a memo asserting that the petition was politically motivated, filed by a functionary of the opposition party. He argued that there was no grave urgency and that the State ought to have been allowed sufficient time to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit addressing the 56 points raised. Wilson went further, alleging 'forum shopping' by the petitioner, suggesting that the choice of approaching the second vacation bench was deliberate. 'Havens are not going to fall. This is a move designed only to stall the process. There is no urgency,' he said. He also noted that the amendments received de facto assent from the Governor following the intervention of the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings. Defending the legality of the amendments, the AG argued that laws enacted by the State legislature prevail over UGC regulations, so long as they do not contravene a central law. 'A state legislation can only be stayed when it is glaringly unconstitutional or manifestly arbitrary. Neither is the case here,' he said, adding that the UGC lacks the authority to constitute search committees for vice-chancellor appointments. Despite these arguments, the Division Bench held firm.
The Hindu
05-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Karl Marx's statue to be installed at Connemara Public Library in Chennai
A statue of German economist and political theorist Karl Marx, whose ideas influenced politics, economics, and social movements across the globe, is set to be installed at the entrance of the Connemara Public Library in Chennai. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, in a post on X on the occasion of the 207th birth anniversary of Karl Marx on Monday (May 5, 2025), said: 'I personally visited and selected the location for the installation of his statue at the entrance of the Connemara Library.' He added that work was under way to erect the statue. Mr. Stalin further said in the post: 'May Marx's ideas cast their light upon the path of humanity.' Last month, the CM made an announcement in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly that a statue of Karl Marx would be installed in Chennai, where the labour movement flourished for over a century.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Tamil Nadu CM makes 9 big welfare announcements for state govt employees
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin on Monday made nine announcements in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly for the welfare of the State government staff. During the session Stalin said that the Government staff are known as administration pillars and government's arms. Since the Dravidian model of government takes charge, many of schemes for people and also many schemes for various department are being implemented which gets applause. In many ways Tamil Nadu is top State in India. Government employees and teachers hard work is one important reason for this, he said. The Chief Minister further said, "On behalf of Tamil Nadu government, I appreciate all government employees who are working hard not to miss anyone in government schemes." The first announcement is the earned leave surrender, starting from October 1, up to 15 days of earned leave can be surrendered for a cash benefit. Approximately 8 lakh government employees and teachers will benefit. To implement this, the government will allocate an additional Rs 3,561 crore per year. The second announcement is the dearness allowance (DA) hike. Based on the Central Government's decision to increase DA by 2 per cent from January 2025, the State Government will also increase the DA by 2% from the same date for state government employees. This will benefit about 16 lakh employees, including teachers, pensioners, and family pensioners. This hike will cost the government an additional RS 1,252 crore per year. The third one is to help government employees and teachers celebrate festivals with their families, the existing festival advance of Rs 10,000 will now be increased to Rs 20,000. The fourth one is the higher education of employees' children. From this year, for vocational education, the education advance will be increased to Rs 1,00,000. For arts, science, and polytechnic, it will be increased to Rs 50,000. Until now, women employees received Rs 10,000 and male employees Rs 6,000 as marriage advance. This will now be increased to Rs 5,00,000 for all employees, regardless of gender, in the fifth announcement. The sixth announcement is the Pongal festival bonus given annually by the Tamil Nadu Government to retired C & D category staff, all types of individual pensioners, and family pensioners will be increased from Rs 500 to Rs 1,000. This will benefit about 4.71 lakh pensioners and family pensioners, costing the government an additional Rs 24 crore. The seventh announcement is to help pensioners celebrate festivals with their families; the existing festival advance of Rs 4,000 will be increased to Rs 6,000. This will benefit about 52,000 pensioners, and cost the government an additional Rs 10 crore. The committee has been formed to thoroughly study the Old Pension Scheme, the Contributory Pension Scheme, and the Integrated Pension Scheme. Based on the demands from various employee and teacher associations, this committee is instructed to submit its report and recommendations by September 30, the eighth announcement. Maternity leave was extended from nine months to one year with pay from July 2021. However, currently, this leave is not counted towards the probation period, affecting promotion and seniority of many young female employees. To protect their service rights, the government has decided that maternity leave will now be counted towards the probation period, the ninth announcement.
