'Temple Not a Picnic or Tourist Spot': Why Madras HC has restricted entry of non-Hindus in Tamil Nadu temples

Non-Hindus are no longer allowed inside temples in Tamil Nadu. The Madras High Court on Tuesday issued a directive to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department, instructing them to install boards in all Hindu temples explicitly stating that non-Hindus are restricted from entering beyond the “Kodimaram” (flagpole) area within the respective shrines. The court emphasised that Hindus also possess the fundamental right to profess and practice their religion. Here’s what the court said and the row over the directive. ‘Non-Hindus not allowed inside temple’ While hearing a plea from D Senthilkumar, the organiser of Palani hill temple devotees organisation, a bench led by Justice S Srimathy directed the respondents to install boards indicating “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. Non-Hindus cannot be allowed inside the temple. But if their faith is established, an exemption could be granted, the judge said. The court ruled, “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 is having faith in the deity and he would follow the custom 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.” Further, whenever such a person is allowed based on the undertaking, the same shall be entered in the register, which shall be maintained by the temple. “The respondents shall maintain the temple premises by strictly following the agamas (temple rules), customs, and practices of the temple,” the judge said. The respondents submitted that the said writ petition was filed only for the Palani temple, and the order may be restricted to it alone. The court said, “But the issue raised is a larger issue, and the same ought to be applicable 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’ People belonging to the Hindu religion have the right to profess and practice the faith. “Likewise, people belonging to other religions have the right to profess and practice their religion. But the customs and practice of their respective religion cannot be interfering with, and any interference ought to be curtailed.” “The temple is not (a) picnic spot or tourist spot. Even in Arulmighu Brahadeeswarar Temple, Thanjavur the other religion people are allowed to admire and appreciate the architectural monuments of the temple, but not after Kodimaram.” “While admiring the architectural monuments, the people cannot use the premises as picnic spot or tourist spot and the temples premises ought to be maintained with reverence and as per agamas. Therefore, the rights guaranteed under the Articles is not granting any right to the respondents to allow the other religion people if they do not have any faith and belief in the Hindu religion. Moreover, the rights are guaranteed to all religions and there cannot be any bias in applying such right,” the court added. Incidents of non-Hindus entering temples The HC also referred to certain incidents of non-Hindus allegedly entering temples. It mentioned that recently a group of people belonging to other religions treated the Arulmighu Brahadeeswarar Temple premises as “a picnic spot and had nonvegetarian food inside the temple premises.” Citing a media report, the court shared another similar incident at the Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar wherein a group of non-Hindu people entered the temple with “their sacred book” near the sanctum sanctorum and were attempting to do their prayers. “These incidents are absolutely interfering with the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Hindus under the Constitution,” the judge said, adding,  “In fact, in the above-narrated 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 is having a duty to protect the temples from such unwanted incidents.” Last year, in May, a video from a temple in Tamil Nadu went viral for similar reasons. The video showed a group of people sitting in the courtyard in front of the sanctum sanctorum of the temple and allegedly eating chicken biryani. The petition Justice S Srimathy from the Madurai Bench of the High Court delivered this judgment during the hearing of a petition filed by D Senthilkumar, of Palani in Dindigul district. The petitioner sought specific instructions from the court for the installation of such boards and signage indicating the non-entry of non-Hindus in Palani temples. He said that such a board, which had earlier been installed on the premises of the Dhandayuthapani Swamy temple, was removed due to renovation work. In his plea, Senthilkumar also mentioned an example wherein 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 to click pictures. When the authorities tried stopping them, they argued that there was no board barring the entry of non-Hindus, he said. While the state government said that installing such boards would hurt the religious sentiments of visitors, the HC refused to accept it. The respondents 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. Earlier, the court had issued an interim order of status quo ante with a direction to restore the board. With inputs from PTI