Madras HC prescribes dress code for temple devotees: Why the implications are problematic

Recently, the Madras High Court Bench passed a ruling that men, women and children wishing to visit temples maintained through the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department across the state must abide by a dress code. [caption id=“attachment_2527044” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Representational image. Image courtesy: ibnlive[/caption] According to LiveLaw.in, Justice S Vaidyanathan gave the decree in a writ petition that was filed seeking to dismiss the order of sub-inspector of Thuvarankurichi Police Station, Trichy which sought to decline permission to conduct a village cultural performance. The interim orders imposed restrictions on shouting slogans, communal overtones and the judge went forth and prescribed an extra direction about the dress code to “enhance the spiritual ambience among the devotees, thronging to worship Gods/Goddesses.” Citing the practices in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam in Andhra Pradesh and Sree Somnath Temple, where devotees are not allowed to wear “disrespectful clothing”, the court informed that the purpose of prescribing a dress code to devotees is to restrict devotees wearing “improper clothing” from entering the temple. The court also ordered that the police officials should not allow devotees inside the temple premises if they did not adhere to the dress code: Dhoti or pyjamas with ‘upper cloth’ for men, saree or half-saree and chuddiaar with kurta for women and for children, any attire that fully covers them. So what is this “improper clothing”, you may well ask? Well, according to the court: Bermudas, shorts, miniskirts, ‘middies’, sleeveless tops, low waist jeans and short length T-shirts. Before discussing the larger impact of this ruling, we must question if this is a case of gross overreaching by the judicial machinery? Ajay Kumar, advocate at the Bombay High Court told Firstpost, “It raises a rather interesting question as the common understanding is that matters of religion are one having a private character and not a public one. This is true in cases where it concerns the right of an individual to profess a faith; but places of worship have historically been treated under our Constitution as places having a public character.” Kumar says that this is because places of worship are treated as charitable trusts and the money (including the property) is held in a trust for the benefit of the “idol concerned”. This means that courts can exercise jurisdiction over how temples conduct their affairs. According to Kumar, the court is within their legal right to notify elements like dress code if they feel that it is in the interest of the trust they seek to protect. It is not a judicial overreach for the judiciary to place guidelines till the parliament can pass a bill, “the only question is whether this was an appropriate exercise of such power,” adds Kumar.  Special government pleader submitted that the matter of dress code will be placed before the state government for a decision within eight weeks, according to LiveLaw.in This sort of judgment comes purely from a place of a particular cultural standpoint and lends a hierarchy to attires and draws binary distinctions such as good and bad. Extrapolating from this ruling, it is imperative to understand that when the court treats a certain set of clothes as appropriate and inappropriate, it is also assigning that very character of the clothing to the person. This will reinforce the backward and harmful mindset that many men and women are trying to fight against. If wearing jeans, skirts is bad and wearing sarees is good — in a situation where a girl wearing jeans gets raped, you are lending to the narrative that the girl was inappropriate and therefore it is not surprising that she was raped; that crime becomes less criminal. According to Kumar, it would have been better if the guidelines did not prescribe types of dresses but only a standard dress code (if at all). “I don’t think it was necessary to have separate outline dress codes for men or women. I see no reason why a woman who should not be permitted to wear a shirt and trousers or a formal skirt while praying at the temple. The explicit nature of the guidelines seem to fall within a grey area between ‘culture’ and ‘modesty’ and that worries me,” adds Kumar.