New Delhi: A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government and the state’s Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department to put up boards in all temples stating that non-Hindus are not allowed beyond a point.
Justice S Srimathy of the Madurai bench issued the directions Tuesday, while observing such restrictions would “ensure communal harmony among different religions” and “peace in the society”.
She said the restriction boards shall indicate that non-Hindus are not allowed inside the temple beyond the spot where dwajasthambam is placed. The dwajasthambam or kodimaram is the flagpole found in every temple in Tamil Nadu between the main entrance of the shrine and its sanctum sanctorum.
The order, however, permits entry of non-Hindus beyond the flagpole, subject to them giving an undertaking that they have “faith in the deity” of the temple, that they will follow customs and practices of Hindu religion and abide by the temple’s customs. Only on such an undertaking may non-Hindus be allowed to visit the temple, the court said.
“Whenever a non-Hindu is allowed based on the undertaking, the same shall be entered in the register which shall be maintained by the temple,” the bench said, while directing the state government and the HR&CE department to “maintain the temple premises by strictly following the agamas, customs and practices of the temple”.
The directions came on a petition filed by a toy shop owner in the Pazhani Hill Temple, which is dedicated to Lord Murugan. The petitioner had moved the court after the state government and temple administration gave no response to his representation to install a board to restrict non-Hindus inside the temple.
The petitioner narrated an incident wherein a family of non-Hindus used the temple premises as a “picnic spot”. According to him, the temple used to have a signboard on the restrictions, but the same was removed during renovation.
‘Temple not a picnic or tourist spot’
“The temple is not a picnic spot or a tourist spot,” the judge noted in her 57-page order, which took serious note of similar incidents reported from other temple premises. According to the judge, such incidents “interfere with the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Hindus under the Constitution”.
The State’s contention that it was under constitutional obligation to not restrict or prohibit citizens on the ground of caste, religion, race, sex or place of birth, was rejected. The court said Article 15 (2) that talks about the State’s role in prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth does not include temples.
Article 15 (2) states: “No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to:
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.”
Emphasising on the rights of Hindus to maintain their temples as per their customs and practices, the court said that the HR&CE department has a “duty to protect the temples from unwanted incidents”.
“Non-Hindus cannot be allowed inside the temple but if the faith is established by non-Hindus, then an exemption is granted to the said non-Hindu to become believer of Hindu faith,” the bench said.
The petitioner made a specific complaint against a fruit shop owner who brought his relatives, wearing burqas, to visit the temple. They bought the tickets and entered the temple premises. On being stopped by the temple administration, the family said they cannot be stopped since there were no banners restricting their entry.
The petitioner claimed that he submitted a representation in June, but there was no response from the state or temple administration. He also said that a banner mentioning non-Hindus was not allowed there, but the same was removed during renovation work of the temple.
“The Hindu temples are always treated as places of worship and such reverence to the temples, its place, rituals and practices connected thereto have become part of the Karma Kanda of Hindu theology,” the petitioner argued. By way of analogy, he gave an example of a mosque where no band or music or amusement was allowed. Moreover, he contended, non-Muslims were not allowed at a particular place of worship inside the mosque and during namaz time.
The petitioner quoted the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, and the HR&CE Act to underscore that the existing laws themselves prohibit entry of non-Hindus inside the temple.
Also read: Citizenship Amendment Act will never take root in Tamil Nadu, says Stalin
‘Duty to ensure rights of citizens enumerated in Constitution’, says TN govt
The state government opposed the petitioner and argued that devotees not just from Tamil Nadu, but from all over the country as well as foreign countries visited the temple as they were believers of Lord Murugan. The deity is worshipped by non-Hindus as well.
“Being the secular form of the government, it is the duty of the State Government as well as the Temple Administration to ensure the rights of the citizens of India enumerated in the Constitution of India,” the State said. In another instance, it added, a similar prayer was not permitted by the Madras High Court in 2022.
The court perused various acts related to administration of temples in Tamil Nadu and also weighed in the rules existing since 1948. It went on to hold the laws and rules enacted to eradicate the differentiation among all classes of Hindus.
However, it said: “While enacting the same the legislature was aware of the confusion that would create and had cautiously stated that non-Hindus are not allowed. Hence the legislature had stated that Hindus are allowed and at the same time prohibited the non-Hindus from entering the temple.”
Therefore, the court ruled, the state and temple administration were bound to implement the Act and Rules in “letter and spirit”.
An earlier move to take away the prohibition of not allowing non-Hindus was struck down in 1972 by the Madras HC, the judgment noted. The more than four decades-old order relied upon a Supreme Court verdict that held: “it is well-known that there could be no such thing as an unregulated and unrestricted right of entry in a public temple or other religious institution, for persons who are not connected with the spiritual functions thereof.”
Hence, Justice Srimathy, concluded: “…when the other religious persons who are not connected with the Hindu Deities, the religious ceremonies and functions and its spiritual functions, then there can be restrictions in the case of non-Hindus entering the religious places of Hindus. Likewise, there can be restrictions in entering the religious places of churches by non-Christians and mosques by non-Muslims and the same would not be violative of Article 15. In fact these restrictions would ensure communal harmony among different religions and ensure peace in the society.”
She rubbished the State’s claim that the board declaring non-Hindus are not allowed would “hurt the religious sentiments of the persons who would like to visit the temple”.
This is a “misplaced sympathy” and “sentiments” for non-Hindus, the court said.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also read: ‘Crusader judge with a vision’ — who is Justice Venkatesh, set to hear cases against DMK, AIADMK bigwigs