In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has issued significant directives to the Tamil Nadu government and the State Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, emphasizing the need to restrict the entry of non-Hindus into certain areas of the Palani temple and its sub-temples. The court’s decision comes in response to a petition filed by D Senthilkumar, the organizer of Palani Hill Temple Devotees Organization, seeking measures to preserve the sanctity of Hindu temples.
Justice S Srimathy, presiding over the Madurai bench, underscored the solemnity of temples, stating that they are not mere picnic spots. The court directed the installation of boards at the entrance and other prominent places within the temple premises, explicitly stating that non-Hindus are not allowed beyond the flagpole area. To further ensure adherence, the judge mandated the obtaining of written undertakings from non-Hindus expressing belief in Hindu religion, customs, and deities if they wish to enter the temple.
The court’s directions include:
- Installation of boards indicating the restriction on non-Hindus beyond the flagpole area.
- Denial of entry to non-Hindus who do not believe in Hindu religion.
- Requirement of a written undertaking from non-Hindus expressing faith in the deity and commitment to Hindu customs.
- Maintenance of a register for non-Hindus allowed entry based on such undertakings.
- Adherence to temple premises’ upkeep following agamas, customs, and practices.
The ruling extends beyond the Palani temple, intending to apply these directives to all Hindu temples across the state. The court justified its decision by emphasizing Hindus’ constitutional right to freely practice and propagate their religion without interference.
The case originated from an incident involving a Muslim family attempting to enter the Palani hilltop temple premises for tourism purposes. The family argued that the absence of a board barring non-Hindus prompted their entry. This incident, along with others cited by the petitioner, highlighted the potential interference with Hindus’ fundamental rights if non-Hindus were allowed unrestricted access to temples.
Justice Srimathy rejected the government’s concerns about hurting the sentiments of non-Hindu visitors, asserting that failure to prohibit non-Hindus could adversely affect the sentiments of Hindu devotees. The court criticized the misplaced sympathy of the respondents, emphasizing the HR&CE Department’s mandate to protect Hindu temples, customs, and practices.
The court also addressed the Temple Entry Authorization Act of 1947, clarifying that while it aimed to eliminate discrimination within the Hindu community, it did not specifically address the entry of non-Hindus into temples.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s ruling seeks to strike a balance between preserving the sanctity of Hindu temples and respecting constitutional rights. The directives aim to ensure that non-Hindus entering temples do so with a genuine belief in Hindu customs, thereby upholding the religious sentiments and rights of Hindu devotees.