Devotees Expected To Enter Temples In Proper Dress Code; Temples Having Dress Code May Fix Visible Sign Boards : Madras High Court

In a plea for a mandatory dress code to allow entry into temples, Madras High Court has observed that devotees are expected to enter the temple premises in proper dress code.

However, the Court also held that it cannot issue a general direction to all temples to put up signboards prescribing the dress code as suggested by the petitioner.

A division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the court cannot 'thrust' opinions on the society. The bench also added that if the customary practice of a certain temple prescribes dress code for entry, then such temple can fix visible sign boards to ensure that dress code is followed and the temples can take regulatory measures to that effect

"The devotees are expected to enter the temples in proper dress to maintain the sanctity of the temple. It is not for the Courts to venture into unchartered waters and thrust our opinions on society. It is the devotees who should realise that they are entering into a place of worship and they need to adhere to the customs in vogue at such temple, if any", the court observed while issuing directions.

Petitioner's case :

The petitioner- in-person and temple activist, Rangarajan Narasimhan, had prayed for the court's intervention in ensuring that visible signboards mandating the distinct sanathana dharma mark on the forehead of male/female devotees; dhothi/phyjama-kurta for men folk and saree/half saree/salwar kameez for women folk) and fully covered clothes for children are put up by the Commissioner of HR & CE Department in temples.

The petitioner also submitted that checks and balances must be put in place to ensure that those entering the temples are believers of sanathana dharma and not atheists. He also produced photographs to show that people are entering temples in different clothes in the absence of sign boards, thereby endangering the sanctity of temples.

Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram, appearing for the state, contended that sign boards have been put up in those temples where a specific dress code is stipulated. He relied on Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India & Ors (2018) and argued that the temple management has the discretion to take regulatory measures with respect to dress code. However, the AG submitted that it must with the liberty to allow devotees of any faith to enter the temple and the plea of the petitioner cannot be entertained.

After hearing both parties, the court initially referred to Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947 and Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the same Act. Section 4 of the Act empowers the temple trustee to make regulations to maintain order and decorum in temples. Rule 4 under the Temple Entry Authorisation Act mandates that no one must be allowed entry in temples unless they have had a bath and 'wears clothes of such manner and material as is customary in such temple'. It also mentions that no one can enter the temple with footwear.

"When a mechanism has been provided under the aforesaid provisions to maintain order and decorum, we find no reason to accept the prayer of the petitioner seeking a particular dress code to be followed, as suggested by him in the writ petition, the basis whereof is not known", the court reasoned referring to the statutory provisions that govern temple entry.

The court, after relying on Mrinalini Padhi, concluded that stipulating a particular dress code depends upon the discretion of the individual temple.

"A person having faith and devotion towards the God needs to maintain proper dress code by himself, by following customary practice of the temple, if any", the court noted.

The court also remarked that if the temple is not having any dress code for the devotees, such devotees should be permitted to enter into the temple according to the provisions of the Act of 1947.

Case Title: Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government & Ors

Case No: W.P.No.1981 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 86

Click Here To Read/ Download Order