Non-Hindus Must Sign Reverence Undertaking To Pass Agamic Temple Flagpoles, Madras HC Rules

In brief

The question

1. Whether non-Hindus may enter the premises of an Agamic temple, and whether entry may be conditioned on an undertaking affirming reverence for the deity and compliance with temple customs

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that non-Hindus who do not sign the required undertaking cannot cross the flag-pole in Agamic temples, and that non-Hindus who display religious markers and do not affirm reverence for the deity cannot enter the temple premises.

It also directed

Any permitted undertaking must be in the format prescribed by the institution concerned.

No costs were ordered

01Facts

The petitioner, a Hindu, sought a mandamus directing the State and HR&CE authorities to inquire into alleged violations of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, and to enforce the relevant statutory provisions concerning entry into temple sanctums and mandapams.

pp. 1–2, 8–10

His request followed reported instances of non-Hindus entering temple premises, including Agamic temples

pp. 1–2, 8–10

The respondents submitted that the applicable procedures were being followed and would continue to be followed

p. 2

The Court considered the scope of non-Hindu entry into Agamic temples and allowed the petition

p. 2, 17

02Issues

i.1. Whether non-Hindus may enter the premises of an Agamic temple, and whether entry may be conditioned on an undertaking affirming reverence for the deity and compliance with temple customs

pp. 2, 16–17

ii.2. Whether temple authorities are required to preserve temple usages and customs by regulating entry in accordance with the governing statutes and applicable precedents

pp. 13–17

03Law Applied

Section 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, defines “temple” to include subsidiary shrines and mandapams attached to a place of public Hindu worship; the Court applied that expanded definition

p. 3

Section 6(20) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, also defines “temple”

p. 3

The Court relied on Sections 10 and 24(3)–(4) of the HR&CE Act: Section 10 requires the specified office-holders and employees to profess Hinduism; Section 24(3) requires officers exercising entry rights to have due regard to religious practice or usage; and Section 24(4) does not authorise a non-Hindu to enter the relevant premises.

p. 16

It also relied on “Kalyan Dass v. State of Tamil Nadu”, which struck down Rule 4-A of the Temple Entry Authorisation Rules as beyond the parent Act, and on “D. Senthilkumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu”, which directed that non-Hindus who do not believe in Hinduism should not be admitted, while permitting entry on an undertaking of faith and observance of temple customs

pp. 5–7

The Court further invoked “Gopala Moopanar v. Dharmakarta Subramaniya Iyer”, “Sankaralinga Nadan v. Raja Rajeswara Dorai”, “Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore”, and “Seshammal v. State of T.N.” for the relevance of temple usages, the trustees’ duty to maintain customary practice, and the religious significance of rituals and protection against defilement

pp. 11–16

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1959 Section 6 Section 10 Section 23 Section 24

04Reasoning

The Court treated the 1947 Act’s definition as extending the relevant protections across the temple precincts, including attached shrines and mandapams

p. 3

It reasoned that the statutory provisions and cited authorities require temple authorities to respect temple usages and religious practice, and do not confer a general right of entry on non-Hindus

pp. 13–16

Applying “D. Senthilkumar”, the Court held that a non-Hindu who affirms reverence for the deity and undertakes to follow the temple’s customs may be admitted in accordance with the prescribed process.

p. 17

It went further, holding that non-Hindus who display religious markers and do not subscribe to reverence for the deity concerned cannot be permitted even to enter the temple premises

p. 17