The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court passed a landmark ruling today, mandating that individuals who do not adhere to Hinduism should be restricted from entering the Palani Murugan Temple. The ruling specifically stipulates that non-Hindus and those lacking Hindu beliefs are prohibited from proceeding beyond the temple’s ‘kodimaram.’
Additionally, the judgment emphasised the necessity of prominently displaying notices conveying this restriction at various locations within the temple premises.
The Madras HC instructed the authorities of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to install boards in all temples explicitly stating that ‘Non-Hindus are not allowed inside the temple beyond the kodimaram’ (flagpole). The court specified that these boards should be placed at the entrances of the temples, near the kodimaram, and in prominent locations within the temple premises.
Justice S. Srimathy further ruled that in the event of a non-Hindu wishing to visit a specific deity in the temple, the authorities must procure an undertaking from them affirming their faith in the deity. The undertaking should also declare its commitment to adhering to the customs and practices of the Hindu religion, as well as abiding by the temple’s established rituals. Upon obtaining such an undertaking, the non-Hindu individual may be granted permission to enter the temple.
“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 has 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,” the judgment read.
Any instance of a non-Hindu visitor allowed entry based on the undertaking should be documented in the register maintained by the temple authorities. This directive was issued as part of a ruling in response to a plea seeking permission for Hindus alone to enter the Dhandayudhapani Swamy Temple in Palani, Dindigul district.
The court also observed that the restriction on the entry of non-Hindus is not just restricted to the Palani temple alone and applies to all Hindu temples in the state.
“The respondents submitted that the said writ petition is filed only for the Palani temple and the order may be restricted to the said Temple alone. But the issue raised is a larger issue and the same ought to apply 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 the 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,” the court order read.
The petitioner, temple activist TR Ramesh, took to X to welcome the decision by the Madras HC, stating that the TN HRCE Department was in violation of the Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, and the Rules framed thereunder wanted to allow Non-Hindus in the temple without any restrictions – leading to Agama violations and increased security risks.
Great news regarding Sri Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple, Pazhani !
— trramesh (@trramesh) January 30, 2024
This is the ancient Sri Subramanya Temple which draws the maximum crowd of devotees in Tamil Nadu – Devotees come in large numbers from Kerala, Srilanka, Malaysia and Singapore.
The @tnhrcedept in violation… pic.twitter.com/SC0bxDIYnr
“Today Hon’ble Single Judge who heard the matters was pleased to allow the Writ Petition against the @tnhrcedept orders. Hon’ble Judge was pleased to direct that a Board be kept that Non-Hindus will not be permitted beyond ‘Kodi Maram’ (Dwajasthamba – Holy Flagpost of the temple). Direction issued that Non-Hindus not be permitted beyond ‘Kodi Maram’. If any Non-Hindu wants to visit, declare that he/she believes in the Deity and will follow the customs and traditions of the temple. Such a register of clear undertaking is to be maintained. The Hon’ble Judge was pleased to make an Intervener in the Writ Petition,” the petitioner further tweeted.
Stating that he would soon move for the removal of the Executive Officer of TN HRCE Department from the temple premises, TR Ramesh added, “Earlier the position of Executive Officer in this temple was declared illegal by Learned Single Judge of Madras High Court. Appeal against this order and seeking to set aside the order was not allowed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. Govt and Commissioner of @tnhrcedept lost their appeals. Yet the illegal Executive Officer shameless continues in the temple in Contempt of the orders of the Courts. I will soon move for the removal of the abject and illegal presence of Executive Officer and the @tnhrcedept from this ancient temple.”
In July 2023, reports emerged that petitioner D. Senthilkumar had filed a plea seeking an order for the temple authorities to reinstate a board indicating the prohibition of non-Hindus on the temple premises. The board had been removed earlier during renovation. The petitioner claimed that a few non-Hindus had attempted to use the winch car to access the hilltop, and when denied entry, they engaged in arguments with both the temple authorities and members of Hindu organisations who supported the restriction. Justice S. Srimathy issued an interim order of status quo ante, restoring the previous situation, and deferred further proceedings.
By August 2023, during the proceedings, the Additional Advocate General representing the State Government argued that, as per the Constitution of India, specifically under Articles 13 and 15, and clause 15(1), individual rights are protected. Senthilkumar countered, asserting that Article 15(2) excludes temples and prohibits their use as picnic spots.
The banner controversy began in June 2023 when the HR&CE department displayed a banner stating “only Hindus are allowed” at the Palani temple, which was removed a few hours later for undisclosed reasons. The banner had been erected after some Muslims attempted to enter the temple as tourists. Hindu activists protested the removal, with a Muslim fruit seller named Sahul engaging in an argument with temple employees, asserting that the temple was a tourist destination and that he and his relatives wearing burqas should be granted entry. He questioned the absence of banners prohibiting non-Hindus. Hindu outfits supported the temple employees and criticised the HR&CE for not displaying banners indicating the restriction on non-Hindus, alleging external pressure for the removal.
