The Court proceeded to issue the following directions:

“(i)The respondents are directed to 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.

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 Court was hearing a petition filed by D Senthilkumar, organiser of Palani Hill Temple Devotees Organisation, seeking directions from the court for installation of such prohibitory boards and signages.

In his plea, Senthilkumar said that in June last year, a Muslim family with several women in “Burquas,” had purchased tickets at the winch station to go to the Palani hilltop, the temple’s premises. After the authorities tried stopping them, they argued that there was no board barring the entry of non-Hindus. The family wanted to go to the hilltop to click pictures, Senthilkumar told the Court.

The judge refused to accept the State government’s apprehension that installing such boards around the temple and the hilltop where it is situated, might hurt the religious sentiments of visitors, who throng the area not only to visit the sanctum sanctorum of the temple but also to take in the view from the hill top.

Such apprehension is misplaced because not prohibiting non-Hindus was likely to hurt the sentiments of the Hindu believers and worshippers.

Hindus too have a right to freely profess and propagate their religion, the judge underscored.

“If a non-Hindu is not having faith and decline to follow the customs and practices of the Hindu religion and decline to follow the temple customs, then the said non-Hindu cannot be allowed and hence there is no question of hurting his sentiments. On the other hand if the non-Hindu who declines to follow the customs and practices of the Hindu religion and decline to follow the temple customs is allowed inside the temple, it would affect the sentiments of the large number of Hindus who practices the faith as Hindu reverently,” the Court opined.

This would affect the right of Hindus guaranteed under the Constitution of India, the Court said.

The Babri Masjid: Ayodhya Ram Temple 500 Years of History

0 (0)

The respondents are worried about the sentiments of non-Hindu who is not having faith in Hindu religion. By pleading so the respondents are failing to protect the sentiments of the Hindus, the single-judge did not mince her words.

“In fact the Hindu Religion & Charitable Endowment Department is mandated to protect the Hindu religion, Hindu temples, its customs and practices, temple customs etc. The respondents are having misplaced sympathy and misplaced worry on sentiments of Non-Hindus,” the Court said.

The High Court also said that while the Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947 was enacted to eradicate discrimination when it came to permitting entry to temples within the Hindu community, the Act did not deal with temple entry of non-Hindus.

Justice Srimathy went to say that “temples were purposefully not included within the purview of Article 15.”

“But the examples cited by the petitioner are real concern for Hindus devotees. Even though the respondent deny the incident cited by the petitioner, there is a newspaper reporting wherein it is stated that group of persons belonging to other religion tried to enter the temple as tourists. It was also reported that in Arulmighu Brahadeeswarar Temple a group of persons belonging to other religion had treated the temple premises as picnic spot and had non vegetarian food inside the temple premises. Likewise recently on 11.01.2024 a newspaper had reported that a group of persons belonging to the other religion had entered the Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Madurai with “their sacred book” near sanctum and sanctorum and was attempting to do their prayers before sanctum sanctorum. These incidents are absolutely interfering in the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Hindus under the constitution. The Hindus also have fundamental right to profess and practice their religion freely and propagate their religion without interfering in their way of practice. Therefore, the Hindus have right to maintain their temples,” the High Court said.

Senior Counsel N Anantha Padmanabhan and Advocate RM Arun Swaminathan appeared for Senthilkumar, the petitioner.

Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan, Government Advocate R Ragavendran, and Advocate R Baranidharan appeared for the respondents TN government and the State HR&CE Department.

Advocate Abhinav Parthasarathy appeared for the intervenor TS Ramesh.