Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Any act on the part of the nominee of a religious head of a mutt which undermines his position as a religious head can be a ‘good cause’ of his removal, held the Madras High Court.
The Court has observed, ‘Since the appointment is admittedly a religious function without any administrative colour to it, a religious Head alone would be the competent person to judge what is good cause or not.’
This has followed the writ petition, filed by Kasiviswanatha Pandara Sannidhi, claiming to be the head of Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam (mutt), had approached the high court seeking to forbear the HR& CE Authorities and Meenakshisundara Thambiran (appointed as head of the mutt) from hindering or preventing the petitioner from functioning as the mutt head.
The petitioner was removed by the previous mutt head on the grounds that he was not attending and performing the rituals and poojas and was confined in prison. Relying on a supreme court decision, Kasiviswanantha has contended that the power to revoke the nomination of the religious head cannot be exercised arbitrarily, but only for a good cause.
In this context, Justice V Parthiban observed: “Though what is a good cause has not been defined, but any act on the part of the nominee which undermines his position as a religious head, can be a valid reason of his removal from the position he occupies.
Since the appointment is admittedly a religious function without any administrative colour to it, a religious Head alone would be the competent person to judge what is good cause or not. Of course, such judgment can be put to test only in extreme cases where the Head of the Mutt acts whimsically and capriciously against the interest of the Mutt,” the court added. The court further observed that in the areas of purely religious function, the courts must be wary of interfering when strong evidence is required either way to decide the claim and counterclaim of the parties.
86540
103860
630
114
59824