Worshipping God Is Every Individual's Right: Madras High Court Directs HR&CE To Enquire Into Affairs Of Temple Closed For Over A Decade

The Madras High Court recently emphasized on the right of every individual to worship a god according to his personal faith. The court was dealing with a challenge against a notice issued by the "Fit Person" of Arulmigu Gurunathasamy Temple, which has remained closed since 2011, stating that the temple will be re-opened on 7th October 2022.

Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed,

In the light of the fact that the worshipping of a god is a right of every individual according to his personal faith, it would be appropriate to direct the 1st respondent herein to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the temple under the provisions of the HR & CE Act [The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act], and decide the rights of the parties in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

It was the case of the petitioner that the temple belonged to his ancestors and was being worshipped by the members of his community. Due to personal disputes between the members of the community, the temple had been closed from the year 2011. The Revenue Divisional Officer had also called for a peace meeting between the rival parties and in light of the pending civil suits, directed the parties to redress their grievances in the pending suit.

The petitioner also informed the court that in a writ petition, the court had directed the Fit Person to consider the representation made by one Veerapathiran on merits and dispose of the same. However, the Fit Person went on to issue a notice informing the public that the temple will be opened on 7th October as per the directions of the court, when in fact no such orders had been passed by the court. Thus, the petitioner sought for quashing of the notice.

On enquiry about the impugned notice, the Fit Person informed the court that though no representation was made by the said Veerapathiran, various representations were received from the general public for reopening the temple. Thus, the Fit Person was within his authority to issue such notice.

The court however did not accept this contention. Seeing that the direction of the court in earlier cases was only to consider the representation of Veerapathiran, the notice issued presently by the Fit Person was held to be non est in law,. The Court highly deprecated the intention of the Fit Person to make the court a fait accompli in his actions and thus, set aside the notice issued by the Fit Person.

The court also noted that the temple was closed for more than a decade and that no action had been initiated or proceeded even after appointing a Fit Person 12 years ago. In such circumstances, the present initiation may be correct.

Such initiation may be correct as the worshipping of a god cannot be stopped by closing of the temple due to the dispute between the two rival groups, such dispute had not been settled between the parties, the court observed.

The court also noted that though the petitioner claimed that the temple belonged to a particular community, no steps were taken to declare the temple as a private temple to substantiate his claim. Thus, in the interest of justice, the court directed the Joint Commissioner to conduct an enquiry as expeditiously as possible within 6 months of the date of receipt of the order.

Case Title: K Seeni Thevar v. The Joint Commissioner and others

Case No: WP(MD) No.23296 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 421

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.C.Selvaraj

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Special Government Pleader (R1, R2 and R4), Mr.S.Manohar (R3)

Click here to read/download the judgment