Police protection is limited to enabling the petitioner to perform customary worship.

The petitioner sought police protection to perform customary worship at Sri Pappathi Amman, Sri Perumal and Sri Veerakaran Temples in S.F. No. 73, Agaraharam Thazhaiyur Village, claiming that he belonged to the third of three branches administering the temples and was entitled to worship during the fifth-Saturday Purattasi function.

The Court suo motu impleaded four persons alleged to be involved in temple management.

Those respondents disputed the petitioner’s bona fides and referred to a pending civil suit involving a person said to be the temple poosari; the petitioner denied acting on that person’s behalf.

The impleaded respondents stated that they would not prevent anyone from worshipping and that the petitioner could attend the temples.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to police protection to perform his customary worship at the temples.

2. Whether the Court should extend any protection or benefit under its order to persons other than the petitioner, including the alleged poosari.

The judgment identifies no statute, precedent or specific legal test as the basis for its decision.

The Court made a limited, case-specific direction: if the petitioner was prevented from offering worship, he could seek protection from the eighth respondent, who was to provide it only to enable the petitioner to worship and not for any other purpose.

The Court recorded the temple managers’ assurance that they would not prevent worshippers from attending and that the petitioner was free to worship.

In light of that assurance, it did not order general or immediate police protection. Instead, it provided a limited remedy if the petitioner was actually prevented from worshipping, while restricting the direction to the petitioner and excluding any claim to its benefit by the alleged poosari or another person.

The petition was disposed of on those terms.