Palani Temple Not A Picnic Spot, Cannot Allow Entry Of Non-Hindus Beyond Flagpole: Madras High Court

Justice S Srimathy of the Madurai bench made the direction in a plea by D Senthilkumar, organizer of Palani Hill Temple Devotees Organization who moved the court after noting that non-Hindus had purchased tickets to reach the Hilltop temple and when they were not allowed inside the temple, they argued saying that the hilltop was a tourist place and could be visited by outsiders. Senthilkumar sought a direction to permit only Hindus to the Hill temple premises and its sub-temples and to ensure display boards in the temple. The court had previously ordered status quo ante and ordered the authorities to restore the display boards which were removed during the temple festival.

The court said temples are not tourist spots and even if one wanted to admire the architecture of the temple, entry should be restricted to the “kodimaram” or flag pole situated at the entrance of the temple.

“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 respondents to allow the other religion people if they do not have any faith and belief in the Hindu religion. Moreover the rights are guaranteed to all religion and there cannot be any bias in applying such right,” the court said.

Countering the plea, the authorities had submitted that the interim relief had exceeded the relief sought for in the main writ petition without allowing the respondents to express their stand. It was argued that the Palani temple, described as the third abode of Lord Murugan, was worshipped not just by the Hindus but also by non-Hindus who believed in the deity.

It was also argued that being a secular government, it was the duty of the State and the temple administration to ensure that the rights of the citizens under Article 25 of the Constitution was not violated. It was also argued that based on the Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, only the sanctum sanctorum of the temple was the place of religious worship and rope car station, winch service station, etc, which were outside the temple could not be restricted.

The authority also questioned the allegations made by the petitioner and argued that the petitioner had not given details of the alleged incidents which led to the filing of the plea. The authorities also pointed out that the installation of boards would hurt the religious sentiments of other communities and may cause unrest.

With respect to the first contention, the court noted that the interim relief was allowed only after hearing the parties in detail. The court added that while granting the interim order, the court had considered the fact that boards had existed earlier and were only removed during the Kumbabishekam festival of the temple.

The court also observed that the Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947 was enacted to eradicate the differentiation that existed while permitting temple entry within the Hindu community and the same did not deal with temple entry of non-Hindus.

After perusing the Constituent Assembly debates, the court observed that temples were purposefully not included within the purview of Article 15. The court noted that there was no impediment in allowing Hindu devotees coming from all over the world and it was only the non-Hindus who were denied entry in the temple.

When the authorities suggested that non-Hindus who had faith in the deity and accepted the customs and practices followed in the Hindu Religion be allowed entry, the court, taking note of the practice being followed in the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, directed that the authorities could obtain an undertaking from such persons and enter the same in a register maintained by the temple while permitted entry.

with respect to hurting the religious sentiments, the court observed that there was no question of hurting the religious sentiments of a non-Hindu who did not believe in the religion or the deity. The court also added that if such a person was allowed entry into the temple, it would in fact hurt the religious sentiments of a larger number of Hindus and with that, the authorities would be failing. The court thus remarked that the authorities were having misplaced sympathy and worry for the non-Hindus.

The court also observed that while the constitution gives every person the right to practice and profess their religion, the customs and practices of their respective religion could not be interfered with and any such interference would have to be curtailed. The court also stressed that religious harmony would be maintained among Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and other religions only when people belonging to different religions respect each other's faith and sentiments.

Thus, the court ordered accordingly.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 47

Case Title: D Senthilkumar v Government of Tamil Nadu