CHENNAI

24 October 2019 00:14 IST

The Madras High Court on Wednesday questioned as to what would happen if Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department officials end up professing some other religion without officially converting to that religion or changing their names as per the practices of the religion that they profess covertly or even overtly.

Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and N. Seshasayee raised the query during the hearing of a public interest litigation petition filed by advocate S. Sridharan of Chennai to remove from service the HR&CE Commissioner and all other officials who had not taken a pledge that they were Hindus by birth and they continue to profess the same religion.

The petitioner pointed out that Section 10 of the HR&CE Act of 1959 states that the Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Commissioner and every other officer or servant appointed to carry out the purposes of the Act should be a person professing Hinduism and they shall cease to hold office when they cease to profess that religion.

Advertising

Advertising

Further, a Government Order issued on September 23, 1961, had brought into force the ‘Manner of proof of professing Hindu religion Rules’ and as per those rules, every person appointed under the Act must take a pledge before the presiding deity in the nearest Hindu religious institution and in presence of the chairman of the board of trustees of that institution.

Two witnesses should also be present at the time of taking the pledge and it should be reduced in writing. The written pledge should be signed by the official concerned and placed before the head office, which should keep it as a permanent record along with the service register of the individual employee concerned.

Stating that the HR&CE department has one Commissioner belonging to All India service apart from two Additional Commissioners, 26 Joint Commissioners and 64 Assistant Commissioners, the petitioner claimed that all those who had not taken the pledge as required under the 1961 GO must be removed from service forthwith.

In reply, Special Government Pleader M. Maharaja claimed that the practice of taking the pledge would apply only to the lower level staff and not to the HR&CE Commissioner. However, after referring to the dictionary meaning of the term ‘appointment,’ the judges said, the petitioner appeared to have raised some arguable points in the case.

The senior judge in the Bench said that he knew a District Judge who was practising Islam without converting officially and without changing his Hindu name. Therefore, he directed SGP to take notice on behalf of the government and file a counter affidavit by November 28.