On 30th January, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court restricted non-Hindus’ entry into Hindu temples across Tamil Nadu. The landmark judgment came in the matter related to the entry of non-Hindus into the Palani Murugan Temple. The ruling specifically stipulates that non-Hindus and those lacking Hindu beliefs are prohibited from proceeding beyond the temple’s ‘Kodimaram.’ Additionally, the judgment emphasised the necessity of prominently displaying notices conveying this restriction at various locations within the temple premises.
OpIndia accessed a copy of the judgment passed by Justice S Srimathy. D Senthilkumar filed the petition against the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Department (HR&CE) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner pleaded to allow only Hindus to the Hill Temple premises and its sub-temples. Furthermore, the petitioner prayed to the court to issue directions to the HR&CE to install display boards announcing the same at all entrances of the temples.
Events that led to the petition
The petition was filed in the High Court on 26th June 2023. In his plea, the petition said he runs a toy shop at Adivaram Pazhani and is also an organiser of Pazhani Hill Temple Devotee Organisation. Every day, he would visit the temple to worship Bhagwan Dhandapani. A few days before the petition was submitted, one Sahul, who runs a fruit shop near Pazhani Bus Stand, brought his relatives who were wearing burqas. They bought tickets to visit the Hill Top. When the ticket issuing authorities noticed them wearing burqas, they retrieved the ticket as Sahul’s family was non-Hindu. An argument broke out between Sahul and the employees. He claimed the place was a tourist place, and there should be a notice if non-Hindus were not allowed.
When devotees learned about the incident, they gathered at Winch Station and supported the temple authorities. Furthermore, temple authorities were criticised for not putting up banners mentioning non-Hindus were not allowed on the premises. Interestingly, there were such banners in the temple, but they were removed during the renovation. New banners were placed, but they were again removed within a few hours. Devotees speculated there was pressure from “higher authorities” to do so. Social media posts by Atheists and Islamists against the banners gave credence to the speculations.
Notably, a group of Muslims was previously caught eating non-veg food in Brihadeeswara Temple premises in Thanjavur. Another group was seen eating meat in the Hampi temple complex. A Muslim man was caught for offering namaz in a Hindu temple in UP. Amidst reports of such incidents, the appellant argued that preserving the sanctity of Hindu places of worship was essential.
He also argued that Muslims do not allow non-Muslim activities on mosque premises. He contended, “These rules of propriety, being a matter of Islamic religion, are promptly respected by all citizens of India embracing other religions. There are positive indications to hold that if a Hindu Temple is intended for the spiritual benefit of all classes of Hindus and the temple as a whole, starting from the Gopuram and leading to Kodimaram, Artha-Mandapam, Maha-Mandapam, and GarbaGraham is to be kept undefiled and unpolluted; no non-Hindu can for pleasure and social evaluation seek entry into such places.” He also contended that specific rules must be followed when worshipping at any particular Hindu temple, and Agama backs such practices.
The petitioner pointed out that HR&CE manages the majority of the temples in the state. However, “to get fame and media attention, some problem makers are trying to enter the temple premises. The maximum devotees are observing fasting and coming to Pazhani for Darshan. Further, Pazhani Hill Temple is not a picnic spot, and the land has rich culture and epic.”
Interim order the respondents’ arguments
As the legal battle continued, the court passed an interim order to install the boards prohibiting non-Hindus on the premises. Respondents argued against the entering order, saying that the temple is revered as the abode of Lord Murugan and attracts devotees from across the country and foreign nations.
The respondents argued that the temple premises, specifically the Winch Service Station and the Rope Car Station, do not fall under the definition of a temple. They contended that placing boards was unnecessary as it would not affect the sanctum sanctorum, where non-Hindus are traditionally restricted. They highlighted the inclusive nature of the temple and emphasised that Lord Murugan is worshipped by both Hindus and non-Hindus who adhere to Hindu customs and practices.
Citing examples of several other prominent Hindu temples in the state, they argued that these temples allow non-Hindus to enter the premises and restrict them only from entering certain sacred places. They criticised the petitioner for rushing to the court before allowing the Temple Administration to address the matter and argued that the incident mentioned was not adequately documented. Thus, there is an immediate need for the installation of display boards.
TN Government argued that sentiments of non-Hindus would be hurt
The respondents expressed concerns that such boards would lead to unrest and disharmony. They asserted that it would infringe on the rights provided by the Constitution of India. They argued that the court’s orders should be considered in the context of the circumstances and possible repercussions. They further argued that it would hurt the “sentiments of the non-Hindus” who have “faith in Lord Murugan”.
The judgment also talks about Section 3 of the Temple Entry Act, which allows all classes of Hindus to enter and offer worship in the temples. The right to bathe in or use the waters of the sacred tank, well, spring or water court in temple premises and passage over any sacred place, including a hill or hillock or a road, street or pathway, can be accessed only by Hindus. Those who are not entitled to enter or offer worship in a temple include persons who are not Hindus, drunken or disorderly persons, suffering from a contagious disease, unsound of mind except when taken for worship under proper control and professional beggars, among others. The Act mentions explicitly that non-Hindus cannot use services inside temple premises.
Interestingly, the government amended the rule and inserted provisions under which non-Hindus could be allowed in the temple premises. However, it was challenged and struck down in the Supreme Court in 1972. The court noted, “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 not connected with the spiritual functions thereof. It is a traditional custom universally observed not to allow access to any outsider to the particularly sacred parts of a temple, for example, the place where the deity is located. There are also fixed hours of worship and rest for the idol when no disturbance by any public member is allowed.”
Contending to the respondents’ argument that non-Hindus who have faith in the deity should be allowed in the temple, the petitioner argued how they could identify the non-Hindus having faith in the particular deity of the temple and are willing to abide by the customs of Hindu religion and customs of the concerned temple.
Contending to the notion that installing boards would hurt the “religious sentiments of the non-Hindus who would like to visit the temple, the petitioner stated that the respondents were confusing the issue. “If a non-Hindu does not have faith and declines to follow the customs and practices of the Hindu religion and to follow the Temple Customs, then the said non-Hindu cannot be allowed, and hence there is no question of hurting his sentiments. On the other hand, if non-Hindu who decline to follow the customs and practices of the Hindu religion and decline to follow the Temple Customs is allowed inside the temple, it would affect the sentiments of the large number of Hindus who practice the faith as Hindu reverently. This would affect the rights of Hindus guaranteed under the Constitution of India.”
The court directed authorities to install boards and not to allow non-Hindus in temples
In its order, the Madras High Court directed the respondents to install boards indicating “Non-Hindus are not allowed inside the temple after Kodimaram” at the entrance of the temples, near Kodimaram and at prominent places in the temple. Furthermore, the respondents were directed not to allow the non-Hindus who do not believe in the Hindu religion.
Also, the court said, “if any Non-Hindu claims to visit particular deity in the temple, then the respondents shall obtain an 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. 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 respondents shall maintain the temple premises by strictly following the agamas, customs and practices of the temple.”
