Discriminatory Ancient Practises Must Give Way After Adoption Of Constitution: Madras HC Bins Plea Challenging Handing Over Of Sceptre To Widow In Meenakshi Temple

Justice C Saravanan added that even if such sanctions were operating in ancient times, these prejudicial and discriminatory practices had to give way in modern times after the adoption of the Constitution. The court also added that objecting to the handing over of the Sceptre to a woman was an affront to equality guaranteed and enshrined under the Constitution.

“The objection to handing over the Sengol (Sceptre) to a woman or a widowed woman prima facie is an affront to equality guaranteed and enshrined under the Constitution…. Even if there were sanctions operating in the ancient times, such prejudice/discrimination practiced in antiquity, have to give way in these modern time after the Constitution was adopted,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea by one Dhinakaran. Dhinakaran had argued that neither a widower nor a widow could receive the Sceptre and the receipt of Sceptre by a widower or widow was an affront to the Agama principles as described in the Sethala Kuripedu and Sethala Book.

The court noted that when the appointment of the Trustee was previously challenged before a division bench of the High Court, the court dismissed the plea and held that all the eligibility criteria had been met and there was no disqualification in the appointment.

The court noted that the practice of handing over the Sceptre symbolized a succession and transfer of power and implied a righteous, judicious, and benevolent rule. The court also found it ironic that the objection was raised with respect to a temple where the presiding deity symbolized the power of the consort of the Hindu God Lord Shiva. The court remarked that the main deity in the temple was a symbol of womanhood and power and history showed that the power was not only celebrated but also revered, venerated, and worshipped.

The court was thus not inclined to entertain the plea. The court, however, gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Joint Commissioner of the temple by filing a suitable application under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959. The court also directed the Joint Commissioner to decide the issues before the festival in 2025 after considering the petitioner's application.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.Ramakrishnan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.Veera.Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader, Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Standing Counsel

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 163

Case Title: S Dhinakaran v The Commissioner of HR and CE and Ors

Case No: W.P.(MD) No.9408 of 2024