Thangam Venkatesh vs The State of Tamil Nadu

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE P.MURUGAN
WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011532442026}
Thangam Venkatesh
S/o.Krishnamoorthy,
No.15-14, Bangaru Bhavan,
TEMCY Colony 3rd Street,
Old Vilangudi,
Madurai,
Tamil Nadu - 625018
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai - 600 009
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600034
3. The Additional Commissioner (Administration),
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034
4. The Additional Commissioner (Inquiries),
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
__________
Page 1 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
Department,
119, Uttamar Gandhi Slai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034
..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus
directing the Respondents to conduct enquiry against the violators of the
statutory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act,
1947 and the rules framed thereunder based on the Petitioners complaint
dated 17.10.2026, and strictle enforce the statutory provisions of the
Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorizaion Act, 1947 and Sections 23 and
24(4) of the Tamil Nadu HR and CE Act, 1959, by forming necessary
enquiry committees as well as complaints section to prevent individuals
bearing other religiou symbols and non-adherents from entering restricted
temple sanctums and mandapams in light of the judgments of the Honble
Supreme Court of India and this Honble High Court in this regard and
pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner: Mr.G.Aravinthsamy
For Respondents: Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian,
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.M.P.Senthil,
Government Pleader.
ORDER
Can non-Hindus enter the precincts of an Agamic temple? In fact,
this issue is no longer res integra . Two learned single Judges of this
Court (Justice T.Ramaprasada Rao in the year 1972 and Justice
__________
Page 2 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
S.Srimathy in the year 2024) have already answered this question. In
view of certain recent developments, the petitioner herein has invited this
Bench to render an authoritative pronouncement. We propose to do so
even though the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the
procedure laid down in the relevant laws and rules are being followed and
will continue to be followed.
2. 'Temple' has been defined as follows:-
“ 'Temple' means a place, by whatever
designation known used as a place of public religious
worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used
as of right by the Hindu Community or any section
thereof as a place of public religious worship.”
(Section 6(20) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959).
The Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act,
1947, has a slightly expanded definition. Section 2(1)
of the said Act reads as follows:-
“ 'Temple' means a place, by whatever name
known which is dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or
used as of right by the Hindu Community or any
section thereof as a place of public religious worship,
and includes subsidiary shrines and mandapams
attached to such place.”
We shall apply the expanded definition found in the 1947 Act.
__________
Page 3 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
3. Temple entry became a contentious issue following social
awakening among the depressed communities in the Hindu fold. Till the
th
commencement of the 20 century, they were forbidden from even setting
their foot on the outer boundaries of the temples. Thanks to the strenuous
efforts taken by reformers and saints such as Swami Vivekananda, Shri
Narayana Guru, Swami Sahajananda and political leaders such as
Mahatma Gandhi and Dr.Ambedkar, the Hindu society realised its
monstrous folly and amends were made, Article 25 of the Constitution of
India provides for throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a
public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Various state
legislations had earlier declared that no Hindu shall be prevented from
entering the temple premises. Of course, this was always subject to the
usages and customs followed in particular temples. Take North Indian
temples like Kashi. Any Hindu devotee can touch the 'Shivling' and offer
'abishekam' personally. Not so here. The sanctum sanctorum of Agamic
temples is beyond the bounds of all Hindus except the Shivacharyas /
Dhikshidhars /Bhattars or those who discharge priestly roles. One may be
a Brahmin but he also has to stop at the entrance of the 'Garbhagriha'. The
reference to Brahmins need not be given any mischievous spin. All
communities stand on the same footing. But Brahmins were placed at the
apex spot in the caste hierarchy. But temple customs and usages will not
__________
Page 4 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
permit Brahmins too from entering the sanctum sanctorum. Exception is
made on the eve of 'Kumbabishekam' (consecration ceremony).
4. When Rule 4A was introduced in the Temple Entry
Authorisation Rules providing for admitting even non-Hindus in the
temple premises, it was struck down as ultra vires of the parent Act by
Justice T.Ramaprasada Rao in Kalyan Dass Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
(1972 SCC OnLine Mad 104) . It was held therein as follows:-
“ 24. ... It is nobody's case that non-Hindus ever
had a right to enter Hindu temples not for worship but for
sight-seeing and as tourists — Hindu temples are always
treated as places of worship and such veneration to the
temples, its place, rituals, and practices connected thereto
have become part of the Karmakanda of Hindu
theology. ... There is positive indicia to hold that if a
Hindu temple is intended for the spiritual benefit of
all classes of Hindus and the temple as a whole
starting from the Gopuram and leading to the
Dwajasthambam, Arthamandapam, Mahamantapam
and Garpagraham is to be kept undefiled and
unpolluted, no non-Hindu can for pleasure and social
evaluation seek entry into such temples. The purpose
of such entry is totally unconnected with any matter of
religion known to Hinduism and to Hindus. Such entry
would negate the very object and avowed purpose of the
temple entry itself which says that entry into temples is
__________
Page 5 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
available to all classes of Hindus.
...
26. ... I am unable to appreciate how Rule 4-A
which is challenged in this Writ Petition serves any of the
purposes of the Act or furthers the accredited policy of
the Act. The policy is set out in the title and in the
preamble. The purpose is to remove the ban on a class of
Hindus who were denied the rights which other Hindus
enjoyed. A non-Hindu is not a Hindu. He belongs to a
different class. He cannot on mundane and social
considerations claim the same privilege or right as a
Hindu regarding entry into a Hindu Temple. The
Legislature also cannot, in exercise of its rule making
power, treat the non-Hindu in the abstract as a Hindu, by
ignoring the policy and intendment of the temple entry
Act. This is a well-known proposition of law.”
Even though we endorse the conclusion of the learned Judge, we
disapprove one of the reasons assigned by His Lordship. According to the
learned Judge, near a Muslim mosque, no band or music or amusement
could pass by so as to disturb the peace of the precincts of the mosque, no
matter whether it is Namaz time or not. This runs counter to several
precedents including that of the privy council in Manzur Husan Vs.
Muhammad Zaman (AIR 1925 PC 36) . If a mosque has been
constructed abutting a road or a highway, it would be atrocious to dictate
to the users of the highway as to how they should exercise their lawful
__________
Page 6 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
right of passage. The right of the other communities and religionists to
take their processions cannot be curtailed by citing the situs of mosques
and churches. Likewise, Hindus also cannot prevent the other religionists
from taking their processions in the customary manner on the ground that
they pass in front of temples.
5. Justice Srimathy in D.Senthilkumar Vs. Government of Tamil
Nadu (2024 SCC OnLine Mad 154) held as follows:-
“ 39. For the reasons discussed above, the writ
petition is allowed with the following directions to the
respondents:
i) The respondents shall install Boards indicating
that “Non-Hindus are not allowed inside temple after
Kodimaram” in the entrance of the temples, near
Kodimaram and at prominent places in the temple.
ii) The respondents are directed not to allow the
Non-Hindus who do not believe in Hindu religion.
iii) If any Non-Hindu claims to visit particular
deity in the temple, then the respondents shall obtain
undertaking from the said Non-Hindu that he is having
faith in the deity and he would follow the customs and
practices of Hindu religion and also abide by the
Temple customs and on such undertaking the said Non-
Hindu may be allowed to visit the temple.
__________
Page 7 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
iv) Whenever a Non-Hindu is allowed based on
the undertaking the same shall be entered in the register
which shall be maintained by the temple.
v) The respondents shall maintain the temple
premises by strictly following the agamas, customs and
practices of the temple.”
The occasion for filing such a case arose because a few non-Hindus
wearing burqas sought entry to the hill top of Pazhani temple. When the
temple authorities resisted, it was argued that Pazhani temple was a
tourist place. Repelling such a plea, the learned Judge remarked that the
temple is not a picnic spot or a tourist spot. It was further observed that if
a non-Hindu does not have faith, he cannot be allowed entry into the
temple and there can be no question of hurting his sentiments.
6. Even though the law has thus been declared in categorical terms,
we notice in recent times that there are egregious breaches.
Mr.Badrudeen Mustafa, an MLA representing the Madurai Central
Constituency where the famed Meenakshi temple is located, went inside
the temple premises soon after his election. He claimed that he had a
right to inspect if proper amenities are being provided. He also went up
the temple towers on the occasion of Kumbabishekam. It is ironical that
the said MLA proclaimed that Sanatana Dharma ought to eradicated.
__________
Page 8 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
7. We take judicial notice of the fact that a Hon'ble Minister who is
a Christian by faith, entered Thiruchendur temple without giving the
undertaking required from Non-Hindus. We have the illustrious instance
of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Shri Joseph Vijay who
worshipped Goddess Meenakshi after signing the undertaking. The
Hon'ble Chief Minister who is a Christian by faith was not asked to
convert to Hinduism. He was only requested to affirm his reverence for
the deity. This is what we call as an inclusive approach. We recall
instances from the holy life of Kanchi Maha Periyava. When some
foreigners and persons belonging to other faiths would express their
desire to embrace Hinduism, he not only discouraged them but called
upon them to show greater fidelity to their faith. When Justice Ismail of
the Madras High Court used to visit him, Periyava respected the great
judge's sentiments by giving him sandal wood paste instead of 'Viboothi'.
8. 'Chamchagiri' is endemic to our political culture. The party
workers as a mark of sycophancy hang around their leader. They tend to
make a bee-line for him. Whether the occasion is appropriate is beside
the point. A jocular instance comes to our mind. A well known Minister
was having a good time in a spa. Somehow word spread around. Soon, a
__________
Page 9 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
good number of Chamchas obsequiously entered the spa and offered their
pranams. Much to the acute embarrassment of the Neta. One can imagine
how the party workers would conduct themselves when they come to
know that their leader, be he an MLA or Minister, is to visit their local
temple. Out of sheer enthusiasm, they will follow suit without bothering
if they can enter the premises or not. We take judicial notice of a video
doing rounds in the social media of persons wearing skull caps, pushing
their way through in Thiruvannamali Arunachaleswarar temple,
notwithstanding the vigorous protests of the devotees. The HR&CE staff
stood as mute spectators.
9. Not only Chamchagiri but also optics matters in a democracy.
We know of one political leader, who is a fundamentalist subscribing to a
non-Hindu faith. But he would make it a point to visit the temple and also
prominently display the religious mark on his forehead. This was to play
to the gallery. The vote value of such a display, is obvious.
10. We hold that usages and customs of temple cannot kneel down
before such display of Chamchagiri and optics.
11. That is why, we deem it necessary to render an authoritative
pronouncement. We made it clear at the very outset that the scope of this
__________
Page 10 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
judgment is confined to Agamic temples. Lord Ayyapa has devotees
cutting across religions. Shirdi Sai Baba is also beyond religion. Both
Hindus as well as Muslims claimed him as their own. Of course now, he
is more a part of the Hindu pantheon.
12. We decided to go back to the fundamentals. Can it be said that
the presence of certain persons in the vicinity of the deity can be said to
cause pollution or defilement? Agamas have definite and clear
injunctions in this regard. Certain classes of Hindus were not even
permitted to cross the flag-pole. But such Agamic injunctions can no
longer pass muster. Constitution ranks paramount and such regressive
theological injunctions have to necessarily give way. But we hasten to
add that those injunctions will hold good in respect of non-Hindus who
do not sign the undertaking.
13. The Division Bench of Madras High Court in Gopala
Moopanar v. Dharmakarta Subramaniya Iyer, 1914 SCC OnLine Mad
104 dealt with a dispute between upper caste Hindus, namely, Brahmins,
Vellalars and Mudaliyars on the one hand, and Ilaivaniyars on the other.
One of the warring factions, namely, Ilaivaniyars, belonged to the Shudra
Varna. The key issue in dispute was whether a community belonging to
__________
Page 11 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
Shudra Varna can claim worship rights in an Agamic temple beyond the
flag-pole. The Court categorically ruled as follows:-
“The castes below the Sudra are most of the
Prathilomas and those who are classed as Anthiyajhas
and out-castes or Pathithas . The prima facie right of
the Brahmins to enter the temple was negatived in the
case in Venkatachalapthi v. Subbarayadu (1) because
the plaintiff, there, it was proved by the defence
evidence, had, in the eyes of the community
frequenting to temples became Pathitha and outcaste
by marrying a widow. Though there are 28 Sivagamas,
the Kamitagama is the Agama most quoted in these
matters and the substance of the other Agamas has been
digested in 18 paddhathies, of which Sakala-gamasara,
Varunapaddhathi and Nirvachanapaddhathi are those
most frequently referred to. In the Nirvachanapaddhathi
it is said that Sivadwijas should worship in the
Garbhagriham, Brahmins from the ante chamber or
Sabah Mantabam, Kshatriyas, Vysias and Sudras from
the Mahamantabham, the dancer and the musician from
the Nrithamantabham east of the Mahamantabham and
that castes yet lower in scale should content themselves
with the sight of the Gopuram. Taking it then as
indisputable that the plaintiffs belong to the Sudra
caste, they are prima facie entitled to worship from the
Mahamantabham, one of the halls west of the bull near
the Dwajastamba and east of the Garbhagraham...”
__________
Page 12 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
In Sankaralinga Nadan v. Raja Rajeswara Dorai (1908 SCC OnLine
PC 10), question arose as to whether the appellants therein and the caste
to which they belonged had legal right to enter and worship in a temple at
Kamudi. The Privy Council held as follows:-
“Where an institution exists for the purpose of
religious worship, but the exact form of worship, or the
class for whose benefit it was established, cannot be
discovered from the instrument creating the trust, or
where, as in the present case, there is no such
instrument, the Court can find no other means of
deciding those questions than through the medium of
an inquiry into what has been the usage of the
worshippers in respect thereto, and, if the usage is a
lawful one, it is the duty of the Court to support that
usage on the suit, legally instituted, of any person
interested. It is not in the power of individuals having
the management of the institution to alter the purpose
for which it was founded, or to say to the other
worshippers, ‘We have changed our opinions, and you,
who resort to this place for the purpose of worshipping
in the customary manner, shall no longer enjoy the
benefit intended for you unless you conform to the
alteration which has taken place in our opinions, even
to the extent of submitting to the presence of other
worshippers who are prohibited by custom and the
shastras from entering into the temple.’ It is not in the
__________
Page 13 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
power of any trustee to say this to the other
worshippers in a temple. On the contrary, it is the
duty of the trustee to maintain the customary usage
of the institution, and if he fails to do so he is, in our
opinion, guilty of a breach of trust, and still more so
if he deliberately attempts to effect a vital change of
usage and to make it binding on the worshippers by
obtaining a decree of the Court to establish it. ”
The above Privy Council decision is relevant since it
cast a duty on the trustees to ensure that the usages and
customs of the temple are maintained. In other words,
they are bound to prevent the entry of persons whose
very presence will defile the sanctity of the temple. Of
course, those decisions rendered in the context of an
altogether different clime should be understood and
applied in the background of our Constitution. In other
words, those decisions should be held applicable in
respect of non-Hindus.
14. Gopala Muppanar was approved in Venkataramana Devaru
v. State of Mysore, (1957) 3 SCC 385. The Constitution Bench judgment
was authored by Justice T.L.Venkatarama Ayyar (described as the
greatest Judge by H.M.Seervai). It was held therein as follows:-
“ 26. ... There is, it should be noted, a
fundamental distinction between excluding persons
from temples open for purposes of worship to the
Hindu public in general on the ground that they belong
__________
Page 14 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
to the excluded communities and excluding persons
from denominational temples on the ground that they
are not objects within the benefit of the foundation.
The former will be hit by Article 17 and the latter
protected by Article 26, and it is the contention of the
appellants that Article 25(2)( b ) should not be
interpreted as applicable to both these categories and
that it should be limited to the former. The argument
was also advanced as further supporting this view, that
while Article 26 protects denominational institutions of
not merely Hindus but of all communities such as
Muslims and Christians, Article 25(2)( b ) is limited in
its operation to Hindu temples, and that it could not
have been intended that there should be imported into
Article 26( b ) a limitation which would apply to
institutions of one community and not of others ....”
15. In Seshammal v. State of T.N., (1972) 2 SCC 11, the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“On the consecration of the image in the temple the
Hindu worshippers believe that the Divine Spirit has
descended into the image and from then on the image
of the deity is fit to be worshipped. Rules with regard
to daily and periodical worship have been laid down
for securing the continuance of the Divine Spirit. The
rituals have a two-fold object. One is to attract the lay
worshipper to participate in the worship carried on by
__________
Page 15 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
the priest or Archaka. It is believed that when a
congregation of worshippers participates in the worship
a particular attitude of aspiration and devotion is
developed and confers great spiritual benefit. The
second object is to preserve the image from
pollution, defilement or desecration. It is part of the
religious belief of a Hindu worshipper that when the
image is polluted or defiled the Divine Spirit in the
image diminishes or even vanishes. That is a
situation which every devotee or worshipper looks
upon with horror. Pollution or defilement may take
place in a variety of ways. According to the Agamas,
an image becomes defiled if there is any departure
or violation of any of the rules relating to worship.
In fact, purificatory ceremonies have to be
performed for restoring the sanctity of the shrine
[1958 SCR 895 (910)]. Worshippers lay great store by
the rituals and whatever other people, not of the faith,
may think about these rituals and ceremonies, they are
a part of the Hindu religious faith and cannot be
dismissed as either irrational or superstitious.”
16. We do not want to stop with citing precedents. The statutory
provisions are equally clear. Section 10 of the HR&CE Act makes it clear
that every person from the Commissioner to the last grade servant shall
profess the Hindu religion. Section 24(3) of the HR&CE Act makes it
clear that even the officers under the Act, shall have due regard to the
__________
Page 16 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
religious practice or usage, while exercising the right of entry within the
premises of the institution. Section 24(4) states that nothing in Section 24
of the Act shall be deemed to authorise any person who is not a Hindu to
enter the premises or place referred to in the provision.
17. The petitioner herein is a Hindu. He is entitled to insist that the
trustees of the various Agamic temples in Tamil Nadu uphold the Agamic
injunctions by not permitting non-Hindus who do not sign the
undertaking from crossing the flag-pole. If such entry is permitted, it
would defile the sanctity of the temple. We intend to go a step further.
Even entry into the temple premises, cannot be permitted for non-Hindus
who sport their religious markers and who do not subscribe their
reverence for the deity concerned. This subscription must be in the format
prescribed by the institution concerned. We say so by deriving inspiration
from Kalyan Dass wherein it was observed that the entire temple
precincts has to be held sacrosanct and also the statutory definition found
in the 1947 Act. This writ petition is allowed on these terms. No costs.
(G.R.S.,J.) (P.M.N.,J.)
23-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
IAS /PMU
__________
Page 17 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai - 600 009
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600034
3. The Additional Commissioner (Administration),
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034
4. The Additional Commissioner (Inquiries),
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Uttamar Gandhi Slai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034
__________
Page 18 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )

WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
DR.P.MURUGAN, J.
IAS / PMU
WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
23-10-2026
__________
Page 19 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 11:07:34 am )