Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court, in a judgment dated 2 June 2025, disposed of the writ petition challenging the appointment of a non-family member as a Thantri of Sri Lakshmi Janardhana Temple, Kapu. The Court declared that the petitioner shall not perform Thantriship until the ongoing term of the 6th respondent (Anantharama Thantri) is completed. Crucially, it held that:
“Should Anantharama Thantri become unable to perform the duties of Thantriship, it shall not descend upon any outsider, but only to a legitimate member of a traditional Thantri lineage, who have been performing duties of Thantri on rotation basis for the last 53 years.”
The Court further directed the Executive Officer of the temple to ensure that Thantriship continues strictly according to the rotational system among the three family branches and in line with the State Circular dated 25.01.2021.
Facts
The dispute centers around the hereditary priesthood (Thantriship) at Sri Lakshmi Janardhana Temple, Kapu. The petitioner, claiming lineage from one of the traditional Thantri families, challenged the performance of rituals by the 5th respondent who, although appointed by a Will from the 6th respondent (Anantharama Thantri), is not from any of the three hereditary families recognized by the 1970 Deputy Commissioner’s order.
In 1970, the Deputy Commissioner formalized a rotational system among three families: that of Smt. Bhageerathamma, Puttanna Thantri, and Anantharama Thantri. This tradition continued harmoniously for over five decades. However, in 2023, the 6th respondent executed a Will bequeathing his Thantriship and that of Bhageerathamma’s lineage to the 5th respondent, an outsider to the family. This led to the petition.
Issues
- Whether the 5th respondent, an outsider to the hereditary Thantri lineage, could be permitted to perform Thantriship based on a Will.
- Whether the petitioner could claim the right to perform Thantriship during the tenure of another branch.
- Whether the rotational order established in 1970 remains binding and enforceable.
- Whether the 2021 Circular issued by the Commissioner for Endowments governs Thantriship succession.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the 5th respondent was a complete stranger to the Thantri lineage and had no hereditary rights. He contended that the bequest of Thantriship by Will violated both tradition and the rotational system that had been followed since 1970. The Will, being executed by a living person, was void ab initio for the purposes of succession. The petitioner insisted that the right to perform Thantriship must revert to the family in rotation and not be arbitrarily transferred.
Respondent’s Arguments
The 6th respondent contended that it was his rightful turn to perform Thantriship, but due to his old age, he had requested assistance from the 5th respondent. He argued that even if the Will was erroneous, it did not vest rights in the petitioner. The State supported this view, emphasizing that the petitioner had jumped the rotational order and that the 6th respondent’s right needed to be preserved.
Analysis of the Law
The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, while defining an Archaka, does not define a Thantri. The Court therefore relied on customary practices and public understanding of the Thantri’s role — which is supervisory, mystical, and hereditary. It emphasized that Thantriship is passed down family lines and cannot be arbitrarily transferred, especially not through instruments like Wills or GPAs.
The Court noted that Section 10 and 10A of the Act prescribe qualifications for Archakas and Agamikas and by analogy, only those with lineage and Agamic qualifications should be permitted as Thantris.
Precedent Analysis
- Deputy Commissioner Order (17-11-1970): Formally recognized the rotation among the three family branches.
- Commissioner’s Affirmation (12-09-1977): Dismissed an appeal challenging the 1970 order, thereby solidifying the tri-branch rotation as a norm.
- Government Circular (25-01-2021): Reiterated that hereditary rights must be respected, and in the absence of hereditary claimants, the next eligible in rotation must be permitted to perform.
These precedents formed the backbone of the High Court’s reasoning that unauthorized performance by a stranger violates the settled legal and religious order.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that Thantriship is not a ceremonial right, but a sacred, hereditary duty rooted in centuries of practice. It reiterated:
“Thantri is more than a priest. His role is mystical, supervisory, and inherited — a sacred thread passed from ancestor to descendant.”
It held that the Will executed by the 6th respondent cannot legally transfer Thantriship to a non-family member during his lifetime. The petitioner’s right must arise only in his proper rotational turn, and not during the ongoing term of another branch.
The Court concluded that breaching this lineage or order by introducing a stranger into Thantriship would cause irreparable harm to religious custom and temple discipline.
Conclusion
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- No Thantriship for Petitioner Now: The petitioner cannot perform Thantriship until the current term of the 6th respondent is completed.
- No Outsider Can Be Thantri: If the 6th respondent becomes incapable, Thantriship shall revert only to legitimate members of the traditional Thantri lineage.
- Compliance with Circular: The Executive Officer must ensure strict adherence to the 25.01.2021 circular and maintain rotation among the three families.
- Ban on GPA/Wills for Thantriship: Any assignment through Power of Attorney or Will to a non-family member shall be treated as illegal.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the sanctity of hereditary religious roles in temples and upholds the primacy of custom and lineage in appointing Thantris. It sends a clear signal that statutory authorities and managing committees must not interfere with time-honoured religious traditions by introducing outsiders or acting beyond their jurisdiction. Any deviation from this rotational norm, especially using GPAs or Wills, could trigger judicial scrutiny.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court Invokes Article 227 to Ensure Timely Disposal of Service Claim