Madras High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Reopening Of Villupuram Temple Sealed Over Caste Conflict

The temple, situated in Villupuram District, was sealed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on June 7 following a dispute over the entry of Scheduled Caste members into the temple. The members belonging to the dominant caste had been protesting against the entry of members belonging to the Scheduled communities in the temple while the latter had been protesting for their right to entry. When rounds of peace talks failed, the RDO ordered the temple to be sealed under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to prevent any possible breakdown of law and order.

When a plea regarding reopening of the temple came up before the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu, the court disposed of the same, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.

The petitioner Sudha Sarveshkumar submitted that the temple was closed citing civil unrest which was in fact caused by some unscrupulous elements who wanted to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the village. She also claimed that there was no untouchability in the village and that people belonging to the Dalit community were entering the temple.

She also submitted that due to the sealing, the daily poojas of the temple have been affected and that non-performance of the daily poojas affects the sanctity of the temple and is against the Agamas. She further submitted that even during COVID time, instead of locking the temples, the daily poojas were performed without allowing the public to participate and the same should have been done in the present situation.

Contending that sealing of temples tantamounts to offences under Section 295 and Section 295A of the IPC, she also submitted that it denies the rights of the deity as per the decisions of the Supreme Court. Thus, she sought for a direction to reopen the temple and continue performance of daily pooja.

Case Title: Sudha Sarveshkumar v Chief Secretary and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 170