On the 4th of July, Madras High Court passed an order that could open Pandora’s box. In response to a PIL about not allowing the entry of non-Hindus during the Kumbabishegam festival of Arulmighu Adikesava Perumal Thirukovil at Thiruvattar, the Madras HC said that those non-Hindus who have faith in the deity cannot be prevented from entering the temple or offering prayers to the deity.
The petition was filed by one C Soman, in response to a Christian minister being invited for the Hindu festival.
The prayer in the petition said:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to permit the Non-Hindus to enter the temple premises during Kumbabishegam festival in the Arulmighu Adikesava Perumal Thirukovil at Thiruvattar, Kanyakumari District and subsequent event scheduled on 06.07.2022.
The court, in its order said:
In our considered opinion, when a public festival like the Kumababishegam of a temple is performed, it will be impossible for the authorities to check the religious identity of every devotee for the purpose of permitting his entry into the temple. That apart, if a person belonging to another religion, has faith in a particular Hindu deity, that cannot be prevented nor can his entry into a temple be prohibited. It is common knowledge that the devotional songs of Dr K.J.Yesudas, a Christian by birth, rendered on various Hindu Gods are played without any demur in temples. In fact, in Nagore Dargah and Vailankanni Church, scores of Hindus worship.
There are certain operative parts of what the Madras HC said, taking a “broader perspective” on the issue and dismissing the PIL, saying it was “devoid of merits”.
- It would be impossible for the authorities to determine who is a Hindu and who is not.
- If a Christian has faith in a Hindu deity, then they can’t be stopped from entering the Temple.
- KJ Yesudas, a Christian by birth, has sung many devotional songs in Temples.
The Court in this judgement seems to have waded into territory that can open Pandora’s box. The Judiciary cannot determine the Hindu faith and what individual temples and festivals should or should not do. Such judgements can also have a cascading effect on the practices of several other temples in India.
For example, the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple allows only Hindus and those who declare their faith to be Hinduism to enter the temple and offer prayers. The Court, in its wisdom, did not want to take a ‘parochial view’ but a ‘broad perspective’, however, such pronouncements can then be used to demand that non-Hindus be allowed in several other temples where rules dictate that only Hindus can offer prayers.
The court further said that if a non-Hindu has faith in the Hindu deity, then he cannot be stopped from entering the Temple. A matter of faith cannot be determined by the court, certainly. In fact, when the court says that the administration will not be able to determine who is a Hindu and who is not, it has to consider that establishing the faith of a non-Hindu in a Hindu deity is far more difficult.
KJ Yesudas, who is a Christian by birth and has sung many devotional songs, also needed to approach the court to seek permission to enter the Sree Padmanabhaswamy temple. Even in this case, it was the Temple committee that had unanimously decided to let Yesudas enter the temple and offer prayers, not the judiciary. “Sree Padmanabhaswamy temple executive committee has decided to permit Yesudas to visit Padmanabhaswamy temple. Yesudas filed an undertaking that he has belief in the Hindu faith and is ready to follow the temple traditions,” V Ratheesan, a member of the temple’s executive committee, had said. “The decision was unanimous… all members who took part in the meeting agreed to accept the legendary singer’s request. Now, we will formally inform him about the temple committee’s decision… It is up to him to decide the date of the visit to the shrine,” Mr Ratheesan had said.
Ideally, the Court should have simply dismissed the case saying that it is a decision that the temple has to take independently, without the interference of the court, to determine if they wish to allow non-Hindus or not.
The Judiciary often looks at Hinduism from an Abrahamic view where principles of universal morals need to be applied, however, in Hinduism, every temple and every Sampradaya would have its own traditions and culture. In the case of Sabarimala, the outrage was precisely for this reason. Women, who did not even belong to the Sampradaya wanted to dictate what devotees should or should not do. They wanted to impose their modern moral construct on the devotees who only wanted to follow the tradition of the deity they had faith in. However, the Judiciary interfered and assumed to dictate the contours of the Hindu faith.
Justice Indu Malhotra, who had given a dissenting view in 2018, had said:
Justice Malhotra observed that religion can lay down a code of ethics, and also prescribe rituals, ceremonies etc. which are also regarded as an integral part of religion and hence are to be protected as a religious belief. She said, “The religious practice of restricting the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years, is in pursuance of an ‘essential religious practice’ followed by the Respondents. The said restriction has been consistent, followed at the Sabarimala Temple for years.”
She had further said:
“In a pluralistic society comprising of people with diverse faiths, beliefs and traditions, to entertain PILs challenging religious practices followed by any group, sect or denomination, could cause serious damage to the constitutional and secular fabric of this country.”
It is indeed true that if the courts start deciding what the contours of the Hindu faith are, it would hurt the secular fabric of the nation and infringe on the right of every Hindu to practise their faith freely. In this case, it is to be kept in mind that the Temple invited the non-Hindu for the festival and a devotee had approached the court. In my personal view, the court should have simply said that it will defer to the wisdom of the Temple and not interfere either way. However, to foist their own sensibilities and make comments accordingly, to define how a Temple’s conduct should be, is a dangerous path to tread. Hinduism is not a monolith and interference by the court only encourages temple practices to be ingringed upon. The comments, in this case, could have far-reaching ramifications and have a cascading effect on several other cases, where Hindu practises are wantonly challenged.
