The High Court, however, noted that the Supreme Court had held that the appointment of a temple priest was a secular function and, hence, there was no question of one claiming a hereditary right over such appointment.
“The Apex Court has also made it very clear that performance of a religious service is an integral part of the religion whereas the Priest or the Archaka performing such service is not so. It differentiated between the religious portion and the secular portion and held that the religious service by an Archaka is the secular part of the religion and the performance of the religious service is an integral part of the religion. Therefore, the prescription provided by the Agamas gains significance only when it comes to the performance of the religious service. Any person belonging to any caste or creed can be appointed as an Archaka provided he is a well-versed and accomplished person in the particular Agamas and rituals of the temple,” the High Court said.
Source: Barandbench
