Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant decision, the Madras High Court has supported the Srirangam Arulmigu Aranganathaswamy Temple’s right to enforce Vaishnavite-only conditions for its prasadam stall tender.

The judgment which was reserved in March this year and delivered on August 12, 2024, dismissed a petition challenging these conditions.

One C.S. Vaithiyanathan, a Saivite Brahmin, moved the high court arguing that the temple's tender notification dated August 23, 2023, unfairly restricted participation to Sri Vaishnavites. Represented by senior counsel C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, the petitioner claimed that selling prasadam, while sacred, is a commercial activity and should not be limited by religious criteria. He alleged the tender conditions to be discriminatory and a violation of constitutional principles of equality.

On the other hand, temple's counsel argued that the Srirangam Temple, being a Vaishnavite shrine, has the right to maintain its religious customs.

They stressed that the prasadam, once offered to the deity, becomes a sacred item that should be handled by those who follow the same religious traditions. The temple’s administration emphasized that these conditions were essential to preserving the temple’s Vaishnavite identity.

The also argued that Srivaishnavite never denotes a particular community rather the persons, who are following Vaishnavism are called Srivaishnavites. 

The bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi upheld the temple’s position, ruling that the tender conditions were not discriminatory but necessary to maintain the temple's religious practices.

"Each temple has its own unique prasadam, depending on the deity worshipped in the temple...This is not just a food to eat but the physical presence of Gods blessing to the worshipper. The food offered is as per the deity’s choice," court said.

Court further clarified that "Vaishnavite" refers to those who follow the Vaishnavite tradition, not a specific caste or community, there the condition in tender could not be termed as a discrimination.

Additionally, court pointed out that the petitioner’s failure to renew his GST registration further disqualified him from the tender process and that the tender had already been awarded to another individual, V.S. Ragavan, whose tenure ended on June 30, 2024.

Apart from that, in a broader context, court raised concerns about the commercialization of temple prasadams, noting that while some temples have opted to lease out prasadam stalls to private individuals, others, like the Arulmigu Kallalagar Temple in Madurai, have chosen to manage the stalls internally.

Court highlighted that temples could generate higher income and ensure better quality prasadams by managing these stalls themselves, as evidenced by the significant profits reported by temples.

Therefore, court directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to consider the possibility of preparing and distributing prasadams within temples rather than outsourcing this responsibility to private entities.