What Happened
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing before a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court hearing the Sabarimala reference, argued that the appointment of temple priests (Archakas) is a religious act — not a secular administrative function — and therefore cannot be regulated by the State.
- The Centre urged the court to review its earlier jurisprudence that classified priest appointments as "secular functions" amenable to state regulation, arguing this misclassified a fundamentally religious decision.
- The Solicitor General emphasised that the State must maintain non-interference in religious matters and that social and religious reforms should be driven by legislation, not judicial rulings.
- The argument is part of the broader Sabarimala reference, in which a nine-judge bench is examining whether religious institutions have an absolute right to manage their own affairs and what constitutes an "essential religious practice."
Static Topic Bridges
Articles 25 and 26: Religious Freedom and Denominational Rights
Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution guarantee religious freedom. Article 25 grants all persons the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health, and allows the State to regulate or restrict "secular activities which may be associated with religious practice." Article 26 grants every religious denomination the right to (a) establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) administer such property. The critical tension lies in determining which activities are "matters of religion" (protected under Art. 26) and which are "secular activities associated with religion" (regulable by the State under Art. 25).
- Article 25(2)(b) explicitly permits the State to make laws providing for social welfare and reform, even if they throw open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
- Article 26 rights belong to religious denominations, not individuals.
- The concept of "religious denomination" was defined in the Shirur Mutt case (1954): a body of individuals claiming a common faith, organised in a way as to constitute a distinct religious community.
Connection to this news: The Centre's argument rests on Article 26(b): managing temple affairs — including appointing priests — is a matter of religion, not a secular function, and therefore falls outside State regulation.
The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine
The Essential Religious Practices doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court to determine which religious practices receive constitutional protection. In Commissioner, HR&CE Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (1954), the Court held that only practices "essential" or "integral" to a religion are protected under Articles 25 and 26. The State can regulate non-essential religious practices and secular activities associated with religion. Critics of the doctrine argue that courts — secular institutions — have no competence to determine which practices are "essential" to a religion, a function better left to religious communities themselves.
- The ERP doctrine has been applied in cases including: Durgah Committee Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali (1961); Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan (1963); Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadiswarananda Avadhuta (2004).
- The Sabarimala reference (2019) was partly triggered by disagreement among judges about whether the ban on women's entry was an "essential practice" of Lord Ayyappa devotees.
- Justice Indu Malhotra's dissent in Sabarimala (2018) argued that courts should not determine whether a religious practice is rational — that is a matter for the religious community.
Connection to this news: The Centre's submission challenges the ERP doctrine itself — arguing that priest appointment is intrinsically religious and cannot be reclassified as "secular" just to justify State intervention.
State Control of Hindu Temples — HR&CE Acts
Several states, particularly Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, have enacted Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Acts that give the government broad powers over temple administration, including appointment of trustees, executive officers, and in some cases, priests. The Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 is the most comprehensive, administering over 43,800 Hindu temples. Courts have generally upheld the administrative provisions as regulating secular functions (financial management, appointments of administrative staff) while not permitting interference with purely religious rituals.
- The Supreme Court in Shirur Mutt (1954) distinguished between "religious management" (protected) and "secular administration" (regulable).
- Tamil Nadu's HR&CE Act was upheld in principal, but courts have restrained states from appointing priests who do not conform to Agamic traditions.
- The Supreme Court in 2024 refused to vacate an order requiring Tamil Nadu to maintain existing conditions on appointment of Archakas in Agamic temples.
- There are approximately 4 lakh Hindu temples under state government control across India.
Connection to this news: The Centre's argument — that priest appointment is religious, not secular — directly challenges the legal basis of HR&CE Acts' power to appoint or regulate Archakas, potentially requiring states to withdraw from this domain.
Key Facts & Data
- Relevant Articles: 25 (individual religious freedom), 26 (denominational rights), 27 (no taxes for religion), 28 (no religious instruction in state institutions).
- Key Cases: Shirur Mutt (1954) — established secular/religious distinction; Sabarimala (2018) — 4:1 judgment allowing women's entry; Sabarimala Reference (2019–2026) — referred to nine-judge bench.
- Nine-judge bench composition (2026): Led by Chief Justice Surya Kant.
- Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act: Administers 43,800+ temples; 46,331 properties total.
- Article 25(2)(b): Allows state to provide for "throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus."
- Solicitor General's core argument: Appointment of priests is a religious act under Article 26(b), not a secular function under Article 25(2).