Temple entry cannot be denied based on caste in a country governed by rule of law: Madras High Court
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh directed the Superintendent of Police and the Udayarpalayam Revenue Divisional Officer to ensure that all classes of people, irrespective of their caste, are permitted to enter the temple and worship the deity at all times, including the annual festival being held at present.
Further, directing the two officials to initiate appropriate action in accordance with the law if anyone prevents a section of people from entering the temple, the judge ordered that the Police and the Revenue departments must also ensure that no disturbance is caused to law and order.
Disposing of a writ petition filed by a local resident A. Venkatesan, complaining of caste-based discrimination, the judge said, the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act of 1947 was enacted after a long struggle by many leaders who wanted to ensure that no one was denied temple entry based on their caste.
Section 3 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that notwithstanding any law, custom or usage to the contrary, every Hindu, irrespective of their caste or sect to which they belong, shall be entitled to enter any Hindu temple and offer prayers in the same manner and same extent to which another was entitled to do.
'If anyone is restricted from entering a temple based on caste of sect, it will clearly amount to an actionable wrong/offence and the person concerned (the one who restricts) could be sued or prosecuted therefor,' the judge wrote and said, the public officials were duty-bound to implement the law in letter and spirit.
What the petitioner said
In his affidavit, the petitioner stated the Ayyanar temple in Puthukudi village had been in existence for several decades and worshipped by villagers of all castes and sects for long. However, in 2019, a group of people tried to hijack the temple administration by deciding to construct a new temple on the premises.
Though the Scheduled Caste residents too had made monetary contributions toward the construction, they were prevented from entering the temple, leading to multiple complaints made to the police as well as revenue officials. However, these complaints could not be pursued for quite some time due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the meantime, the offending group demolished all statues and stone structures that had been put up by the Scheduled Caste residents on the temple premises. Even a big statue of Ayyanar that had been installed, with the name of the Scheduled Caste donor, was removed and dumped into the temple well, the petitioner alleged.
He also said an iron gate was installed at the Puthukudi Ayyanar Temple and the Scheduled Caste devotees were made to worship the deity only from outside the gate. Despite such discrimination, the government officials had not made any effective intervention in the matter fearing law and order problems, he added.
Further, stating that the offending group identifies itself as the 'Ezhu Vaigaiyara,' the petitioner sought a direction to permit the Scheduled Caste devotees too to enter the Puthukudi Ayyanar Temple, besides letting them participate in the temple car festival scheduled from July 16 to 31, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
3 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Tamil Nadu gets Madras HC pat for SOPs on EOW action
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court commended the state for issuing SOPs aimed at strengthening the Economic Offences Wing by streamlining its functions and by promoting transparent and time-bound action in financial fraud cases. Pointing to the G.O. passed to include 'economic offenders' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (Goondas Act), Justice B Pugalendhi called it a major policy shift that empowers the authorities to invoke preventive detention against habitual offenders operating fraudulent financial firms. Recalling that the court had earlier expressed concern over lack of preventive vigilance by the EOW, the judge acknowledged the state's submission regarding the steps being taken. However, noting that no outer time limit has been fixed for issuance of ad-interim attachment orders under Section 3 of the TNPID Act, the judge fixed 12 days from the receipt of proposal by the ADGP, EOW, as the maximum permissible period for issuing such directions. The observations were made on a contempt plea against the home secretary for non-implementation of the court's order in his petition seeking release of deposit from a frozen bank account of a firm involved in fraud.
Scroll.in
33 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Why the Supreme Court's new push to regulate social media threatens free expression
This week, three separate benches of the Supreme Court spoke of restricting freedom of speech on social media. On Monday, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition by Kolkata-based Wazahat Khan seeking the consolidation of first information reports registered against him in Assam, Maharashtra, Delhi and Haryana over his social media posts. In his posts, Khan had made allegedly offensive remarks about Hindu deities and festivals. Since last month, he has been under arrest for the posts by the West Bengal Police. The bench continued the interim protection the court had granted Khan from arrest in the cases registered outside Bengal. But during the hearing, Nagarathna called for citizens to 'regulate themselves' on social media and exercise 'self restraint … to enjoy' the right to free speech and expression. She noted that the 'abuse of that freedom' was leading to the 'clogging of courts' – without providing any data to support this claim. She then called for 'guidelines to be issued to the citizens to comply'. Over Monday and Tuesday, another bench of the court comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Arvind Kumar heard an anticipatory bail plea by Indore-based cartoonist Hemant Malviya. Malviya had been booked in May for hurting religious sentiments. His offence? Posting on social media a cartoon he had made in 2021 depicting a satirical situation featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a man dressed in what may appear to some as the uniform of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, the parent organisation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Earlier this month, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had not only rejected his application for anticipatory bail but also called for his arrest. The bench of Dhulia and Kumar granted Malviya interim protection from arrest. However, it called his cartoons 'inflammatory', 'immature' and 'offensive'. Describing this as a widespread problem, Dhulia said on Tuesday that the court would 'have to do something on this', adding that 'there should be a test', presumably about what may be permitted to be posted online. That same day, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard three petitions that it was hearing together. Two of the petitions were by YouTubers Ranveer Allahbadia and Ashish Chanchlani to club the FIRs filed against them in parts of the country and one by charitable organisation SMA Cure Foundation against comedians Samay Raina, Vipun Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar for making jokes about persons with disabilities. During the hearing, Kant told the attorney general that any guidelines framed by the government to regulate online content must 'balance' freedoms and duties. To be clear, under India's constitutional framework, fundamental duties are not grounds to restrict the freedom of speech and expression – or any other fundamental right. In February, while hearing Allahbadia's petition, Kant had first nudged the government to regulate obscene content on YouTube and said that the court 'would like to do something' and not 'leave this vacuum'. Each of these cases illustrates judicial overreach. In none of these cases had the parties sought regulations on online speech. Ideally, the court would have restricted itself to the actual subject of the petitions and adjudicated on them. Instead, it went into the tone and tenor of specific items of online content – not whether these constituted criminal offences – and has called for an online censorship regime. This trend does not bode well for free speech in India. It has revived the Union government's efforts to push for a sweeping Broadcasting Bill. Last year, it had mooted such a bill ahead of the Lok Sabha elections but withdrew it in August amid allegations by news associations and civil society organisations that it impinged on free speech online. It also leads to the right to free speech being circumscribed by public outrage and the sensibilities of judges. The Supreme Court, and all other courts, would do well to remember the judgement delivered in March by a bench comprising Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. Quashing an FIR registered against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi for an Instagram post, the judgement, written by Oka, said: 'Sometimes, we, the judges, may not like spoken or written words. But, still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a).' Here is a summary of the week's top stories. Opposition leader's son held. The Enforcement Directorate arrested Chaitanya Baghel, the son of Chhattisgarh's former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, in a liquor scam case. The action came after the central agency conducted searches at their home in Durg district. The agency has alleged that a syndicate of officials, politicians and others ensured a state-run firm bought liquor only from select distributors who paid a commission. This action, the authorities alleged, resulted in over Rs 2,000 crore being diverted from the state exchequer between 2019 and 2022. Chaitanya Baghel received the proceeds of crime generated from the bootlegging of alcohol, claimed the Enforcement Directorate. Bhupesh Baghel claimed on Friday that the agency's action was an attempt to stop him from asking questions in the Assembly about the trees being allegedly felled by the Adani Group. Respite for Indian nurse. Yemeni authorities agreed to postpone the execution of Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya, which had been scheduled for Wednesday. No new date has been announced. This came a day after the Union government told the Indian Supreme Court that it could not do much more to prevent the action. Hailing from Kerala's Palakkad, Priya was imprisoned in Yemen for the alleged murder of Yemeni citizen Talal Abdo Mehdi in July 2017. In 2020, Priya had been sentenced to death by a trial court in the Yemeni capital Sanaa. On December 30, news reports claimed that Rashad al-Alimi, the chairperson of Yemen's Presidential Leadership Council, had approved the sentence. Assam eviction drive turns violent. A 19-year-old was killed and several injured after the Assam Police opened fire at protesters amid clashes at the site of an eviction drive in the Betbari area of Goalpara district. At least two police personnel were among the injured. Ten persons were arrested in connection with the violence. Authorities had cleared 140 hectares of land in the Paikan Reserve Forest on Saturday, displacing 1,080 families, most of whom were Muslims of Bengali origin. Since then, the displaced families have been living in tents and tarpaulin huts, which officials had asked them to dismantle. The clashes broke out on Thursday after authorities dug up the road that provided connectivity to the settlement. The state blames the police. Karnataka Police officers acted like 'servants' of the Indian Premier League team Royal Challengers Bengaluru, the state government told the High Court hearing the case about the stampede outside Bengaluru's Chinnaswamy Stadium. Eleven persons were killed during the stampede on June 4. The state government also told the court that police officers had started making arrangements for celebrations after the team's victory in the league without ascertaining who had permitted the event. Further, the government claimed that the cricket team had submitted an application proposing a celebration even before the final match. The government defended the suspension of Additional Commissioner of Police Vikash Kumar Vikash, accusing him of failing to do his duty and causing 'public embarrassment'.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Upa Lokayukta takes suo motu action over neglect of ancient Srirama temple
BENGALURU: Taking suo motu cognisance of the dilapidated condition of the Srirama temple, a protected monument situated in Kudluru of Channapatna taluk in Bengaluru South district, Upa Lokayukta Justice K N Phaneendra registered a case against all the concerned authorities and sought an explanation for their inaction. Justice Phaneendra's action came after he took note of the sorry state of affairs of the temple after he visited it while he was on his way to check the rampant pollution and encroachment of lakes on July 7, along with Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru South District Yashavanth V Gurukar, other officials. Justice Phaneendra noted that this is one among the famous temples constructed on the bank of the river Kanva between the fourth and fifth centuries ago by the Ganga empire, and it was declared a protected monument on May 5, 1987. The compound of the wall and retaining wall on the right side of the stone pillar outside the temple are nearly collapsing, the stone wall in in the sanctum sanctorum is slipping, it also developed cracks inside the walls of the temple- all of these could led to a big disaster, if not paid attention to immediately, Justice Phaneendra noted. The Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) of the Archaeological Department, Tarakesh, who was present, told Upa Lokayukta that the compound wall collapsed due to erosion of the bund of the river, which was exploited severely for sand mining. When enquired, Mohan, Executive Engineer (EE), CNNL, informed the Upa Lokayukta that the construction of the retaining wall will be taken up by them if the proposal comes from the state government. However, this monument has been neglected by the Department of Archaeology, Museums and Heritage, CNNL, Revenue Department, which amounts to 'Maladministration' under Section 2(10) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, he said. Therefore, in order to take action against them as well as remedial measures to protect the monument, he registered a suo motu case against officials Tarakesh, Mohan, and Mohammed Zeeshan Ali Khan, who is the Tahsildar of Muzrai Department, Bengaluru South District.
