Madras High Court Limits Palani Temple Entry, Prioritizing Sanctity: Sacred Spaces, Not Tourist Spots

Non-Hindu entry into Tamil Nadu temples has been prohibited following a directive from the Madras High Court on Tuesday.

The court instructed the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department to install boards in all Hindu temples explicitly stating the restriction for non-Hindus beyond the "Kodimaram" (flagpole) area.

Photo Credit: ANI

Madras HC Limits Palani Temple Entry, Here's Why

The court underscored the fundamental right of Hindus to profess and practice their religion. In response to a plea from D Senthilkumar, the organizer of the Palani hill temple devotees organization, a directive was issued by a bench led by Justice S Srimathy, instructing the respondents to install boards indicating that "non-Hindus are not allowed inside the temple after Kodimaram" in the entrance of the temples, near the flagpole, and at prominent places in the shrine, according to PTI.

The court ruled that non-Hindus cannot be allowed inside the temple, with the possibility of an exemption if their faith is established. The judge stated, "The respondents are directed not to allow the non-Hindus who do not believe in Hindu religion. If any non-Hindu claims to visit a particular deity in the temple, then the respondents shall obtain an undertaking from the said non-Hindu that he has faith in the deity and he would follow the customs and practices of the Hindu religion and also abide by the temple customs, and on such undertaking, the said non-Hindu may be allowed to visit the temple."

Moreover, the court mandated that whenever such a person is allowed based on the undertaking, the same shall be entered in the register, maintained by the temple. The judge emphasized, "The respondents shall maintain the temple premises by strictly following the agamas (temple rules), customs, and practices of the temple."

Despite the respondents' plea that the writ petition was filed only for the Palani temple, the court rejected this limitation, stating, "But the issue raised is larger, and the same ought to apply to all Hindu temples; hence, the plea of the respondents is rejected. As stated supra, these restrictions would ensure communal harmony among different religions and ensure peace in society. Therefore, the state government, the HR&CE department, the respondents, and all persons who are involved in temple administration are directed to follow the directions to all Hindu temples."

'Not a picnic or tourist spot'

The right to profess and practice the Hindu faith is afforded to individuals belonging to the Hindu religion. Similarly, individuals adhering to other religions have the right to profess and practice their respective religions. However, any interference with the customs and practices of their religion must be curtailed.

The court emphasized that temples are not picnic spots or tourist spots. Even in Arulmighu Brahadeeswarar Temple, Thanjavur, individuals from other religions are permitted to admire and appreciate the architectural monuments of the temple, but this allowance ceases beyond the Kodimaram.

While admiring the architectural monuments, individuals are not permitted to use the temple premises as a picnic spot or tourist spot, and the temples must be maintained with reverence and following agamas. The court added that the rights guaranteed under the Articles do not grant the respondents the right to allow individuals from other religions if they lack faith and belief in the Hindu religion. Furthermore, these rights are guaranteed to all religions without bias in their application.

Incidents of non-Hindus entering temples

Certain incidents of non-Hindus allegedly entering temples were referred to by the HC. It was mentioned that recently, the Arulmighu Brahadeeswarar Temple premises were treated as "a picnic spot, and nonvegetarian food was consumed inside the temple premises" by a group of people belonging to other religions. Another similar incident at the Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar was cited, wherein a group of non-Hindu individuals entered the temple near the sanctum sanctorum with "their sacred book" and attempted to perform their prayers, according to a media report.

The judge stated, "These incidents are interfering with the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Hindus under the Constitution." Additionally, the court remarked that in the mentioned incidents, the Department had failed to protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The court added, "The Hindus also have the fundamental right to profess and practice their religion freely and propagate their religion without interfering in their way of practice. Therefore, the Hindus have the right to maintain their temples as per their customs and practices, and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department must protect the temples from such unwanted incidents."

Last year, in May, a video from a temple in Tamil Nadu went viral for similar reasons, depicting a group of people sitting in the courtyard in front of the sanctum sanctorum of the temple and allegedly eating chicken biryani.

The petition

This judgment was delivered by Justice S Srimathy from the Madurai Bench of the High Court during the hearing of a petition filed by D Senthilkumar, of Palani in Dindigul district.

Specific instructions for the installation of boards and signage indicating the non-entry of non-Hindus in Palani temples were sought by the petitioner in the court. It was mentioned that a board, which had previously been installed on the premises of the Dhandayuthapani Swamy temple, was removed due to renovation work.

In the plea, an example was cited wherein a Muslim family with several women in "burqas" had purchased tickets at the winch station to go to the Palani hilltop, the temple's premises, to take pictures. When the authorities attempted to stop them, they argued that there was no board barring the entry of non-Hindus.

While the installation of such boards was opposed by the state government because it would hurt the religious sentiments of visitors, this argument was not accepted by the HC.

The respondents in the case were the Tamil Nadu government, represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Tourism, Culture, and Religious Endowments, the Commissioner, HR&CE, and the Executive Officer of the Palani temple. The HR&CE department administers Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu.

Previously, the court had issued an interim order of status quo ante with a direction to restore the board.

(With PTI Inputs)