• Today: November 01, 2025

Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu

01 November, 2025
1301
Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) — Agamas, Articles 25 & 26, and Archaka Appointments | The Law Easy

Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu

(1972) 2 SCC 11 — Agamas, essential practice, and Archaka appointments under Articles 25–26

Supreme Court of India 1972 Citation: (1972) 2 SCC 11 Religion & Law Reading time: ~9 min India
Author: Gulzar Hashmi Published: Slug: seshammal-v-state-of-tamil-nadu
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Article 25, Article 26, Archaka appointment, Agamas SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: essential religious practice, denomination, temple governance, Tamil Nadu G.O.
Hero image: Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu


Quick Summary

The State tried to open the post of Archaka (priest) to all Hindus. Petitioners said this ignores the Agamas that guide worship in Saivite and Vaishnavite temples.

The Supreme Court treated Agamas as essential practices for these temples. Where Agamas require an Archaka to be from a specific denomination, that rule must be respected under Articles 25–26. The reform G.O. could not override this.

Issues

  1. Can opening Archaka posts to all Hindus, regardless of denomination, stand with Agamas and Articles 25–26?
  2. Must trustees follow Agama requirements on the Archaka’s denomination while appointing?

Rules

  • Article 25: Freedom of religion for all persons; subject to public order, morality, and health.
  • Article 25(2)(a): State can regulate or restrict non-essential secular aspects of religious practice.
  • Article 26: Denominations manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
  • Essential Religious Practice: Practices central to the faith (here, Agamas for specific temples).

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline for Seshammal case

Reform move: State issues a G.O. and amendments, aiming to open Archaka posts widely as social reform.

Petitioners’ complaint: Reform disturbs Agama-based rituals; risks desecration in Saivite/Vaishnavite temples.

Focus in Court: Compare the Principal Act sections and their amended forms to judge the impact on religious affairs.

Arguments

Petitioners (Seshammal & Ors.)

  • Agamas are essential; they decide who can be Archaka.
  • Government reform alters rituals; risks defilement of the deity.
  • Violates Articles 25–26 (religious freedom and denomination rights).

Respondents (State of Tamil Nadu)

  • State can bring social reform and regulate non-essential aspects.
  • Opening posts prevents discrimination and broadens opportunity.
  • Trustees can still ensure competence and ritual knowledge.

Judgment (Held)

Judgment illustration: Seshammal decision
  • Agamas = essential practice: In temples governed by Agamas, their prescriptions bind the appointment of Archakas.
  • Denomination requirement valid: If Agamas demand a specific denomination for Archakas, trustees must follow it.
  • G.O. cannot override essentials: A reform measure that cuts into essential religious practice is outside Article 25(2)(a) and cannot stand.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the Agamas control worship, their commands on who may serve as Archaka are religious, not secular. The State may regulate secular administration, but cannot replace essential ritual norms fixed by scripture and denomination.

Why It Matters

  • Clarifies the line between secular regulation and religious essentials.
  • Guides trustees on appointments consistent with denomination-specific Agamas.
  • Shapes policy on temple governance and reform limits.

Key Takeaways

  • Essentials protected: Agama rules on Archakas are religious essentials.
  • State limits: Article 25(2)(a) covers secular matters, not essential rituals.
  • Denomination matters: Eligibility can turn on denominational fit, not generic identity.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Agama Anchors Archaka”

  1. Agama: Scriptures guide temple worship.
  2. Anchors: Essentials cannot be re-written by G.O.
  3. Archaka: Denomination rule applies if Agamas say so.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Can the State open Archaka posts to all Hindus despite Agamas?

Rule

Arts. 25, 25(2)(a), 26; essential practice doctrine; denomination rights.

Application

Agamas require denomination-specific Archakas; G.O. intrudes on essentials.

Conclusion

State cannot override essential Agama prescriptions.

Glossary

Agamas
Temple scriptures that set ritual rules, including priest eligibility.
Archaka
Priest who performs temple worship according to Agamas.
Denomination
A sect within Hinduism (e.g., specific Vaishnavite/Saivite traditions).
Essential Practice
A practice central to a religion; protected from State alteration.

FAQs

No, not when the reform cuts essential religious practice. It permits regulation of secular aspects only.

The judgment framed it as denomination-based, not a blanket caste rule. Fit to the temple’s Agama is the key.

Follow the temple’s Agamas on eligibility and ensure competence in rituals.

Seshammal: Agama rules on Archakas are essential; State cannot replace them via reform G.O.; Articles 25–26 protect denomination control.
Supreme Court judgment visual: Seshammal case
Illustration for student learning.
```
Reviewed by The Law Easy • Category: Religion & Law Temple Governance Essential Practice

Comment

Nothing for now