Madras High Court: In a writ petition praying to direct the State to permit only Hindus to the Hill Temple Premises and its sub temples and consequently directing the Executive Officer, Arulmigu Palani Dhandayuthapani Swamy Devasthanam, to display boards to that effect in all entrances, S. Srimathy, J. gave the following directions:
-
The State was directed to install Boards indicating that “non-Hindus are not allowed inside temple after Kodimaram” in the entrance of the temples, near Kodimaram and at prominent places in the temple.
-
The State was directed not to allow the non-Hindus who do not believe in Hindu religion. If any non-Hindu claims to visit particular deity in the temple, then the Government was directed to obtain undertaking from the said non-Hindu that he is having faith in the deity and he would follow the customs and practices of Hindu religion and also abide by the Temple customs and on such undertaking the said non-Hindu may be allowed to visit the temple. It added that, 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 State was directed to maintain the temple premises by strictly following its agamas, customs and practices.
The petitioner submitted that if a Hindu Temple is intended for a spiritual benefit of all classes of Hindus and the temple as a whole is to be kept undefiled and unpolluted, no non-Hindu can for pleasure and social evaluation seek entry into such places. The purpose of such an entry is totally unconnected with any matter of religion known to Hinduism and to Hindus. Such entry would negate the very object.
Concerning the contention of the petitioner that the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947 was enacted with an object to authorize entry in the Hindu Temples in the State of Tamil Nadu is enacted only for the Hindus and non-Hindus cannot be permitted, the Court took note of the definition of “temple” under Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (‘HR&CE Act’) and the Temple Entry Act.
The Court said that the Temple Entry Act has extended definition, wherein the subsidiary shrines and mandapams are included, but both categorically states it is right of the Hindu Community. Further, it added that Section 10 of the HR&CE Act states that the employees of the Department shall be persons who profess Hindu religion and ceases to hold office, when the person ceases to profess that religion. The Court also noted that the HR&CE Act restricts the entry to the temple for the employees of the HR&CE itself, and the non-Hindus are not allowed at all. Further, Section 3 of the Temple Entry Act also states entry is allowed only to Hindus.
Thus, the Court said that it is evident that when the class Hindus were not allowed inside the temple, to eradicate the differentiation among all classes of Hindus, the Temple Entry Act and Rules were enacted permitting all Hindus to enter the temples. 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 stated that Hindus are allowed and prohibited the non-Hindus from entering the temple.
The Court said that both the HR&CE Act and the Temple Entry Act allow all Hindus to enter in the temple and also, states non-Hindus are not allowed inside the temples. Thus, the State is bound to implement the Act and Rules in letter and spirit.
Further, the Court said that this position is further clear when the government had amended the Temple Entry Rule and inserted Rule 4-A, to take away the prohibition of not allowing the non-Hindus, but the said Rule was struck down by the Court in Kalyan Dass v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1972 SCC OnLine Mad 104.
Concerning the submission by the State that under Article 13 and 15 of the Constitution of India, especially under clause 15(1), the rights of other persons are protected, the Court opined that the temples are not covered under Article 15, hence it has restricted entry for non-Hindus, and hence the plea of the State ought to be rejected.
Regarding the contention of the State that the devotees are coming not only from Tamil Nadu, but also from foreign countries to worship Lord Murugan, the Court said that the devotees who are Hindus coming from all over India and foreign countries can be allowed. Further, the State cannot allow foreigners who are non-Hindus inside the temple from Kodimaram / Dhwajasthambham by collecting entry fees.
The Court while noting the State’s contention that if the Board indicating “non-Hindus are not allowed” is installed, the same would hurt the religious sentiments of the persons who would like to visit the temple, remarked that if a non-Hindu is not having faith and refuses to follow the customs and practices of the Hindu religion and refuses to follow the Temple Customs, then the said non-Hindu cannot be allowed and hence there is no question of hurting his sentiments. If the non-Hindu who refusesto follow the customs and practices of the Hindu religion is allowed inside the temple, it would affect the sentiments of the large number of Hindus who practices the faith as Hindu reverently. This would affect the right of Hindus guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
The Court remarked that the State is worried about the sentiments of non-Hindu who doesn’t have faith in Hindu religion. They are failing to protect the sentiments of the Hindus. Infact the Hindu Religion & Charitable Endowment Department is mandated to protect the Hindu religion, Hindu temples, its customs and practices, temple customs etc. The State is having misplaced sympathy and misplaced worry on sentiments of non-Hindus.
After referring to Article 25 to 28 of the Constitution, the Court said that it has guaranteed the right to profess and practice their own religion. But the customs and practice of their respective religion cannot have interference with, and any interference ought to be curtailed. The Temple is not picnic spot or tourist spot. While admiring the architectural monuments the people cannot use the premises as picnic spot or tourist spot and the temples premises ought to be maintained with reverence and as per agamas. Therefore, the rights guaranteed under the Articles is not granting any right to the State to allow the other religion people if they do not have any faith and belief in the Hindu religion.
Concerning the contention of the State that the Board need not be installed near the entrance of the temple, near Winch Station, near Rope Car Station, since the same would not come within the temple premises, the Court said that if the non-Hindus is climbing all the way to the Hill and after climbing the Hill, if it comes to the knowledge that non-Hindus are not allowed then it would frustrate them and he would question why it has not been informed before climbing. Thus, to avoid such situations it is imperative to install a board in the entrance itself and as many places as possible.
The Court held that 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 Court directed the State Government, the HR&CE department, and all persons who are involved in temple administration to follow the directions to all Hindu Temples.
[D. Senthilkumar v Government of Tamil Nadu, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 154, Order dated 30-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Senior Counsel N.Anantha Padmanabhan
For Respondent: Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan, Government Advocate
R.Ragavendran , Advocate R.Baranidharan, Advocate Abinav Parthasarathy
Buy Constitution of India HERE
