Palani row | Not all areas are secular, says lawyer who argued case
Boards disallowing non-Hindus from entering temples hardly new in TN, says Arun Swaminathan; ruling acceptable neither by law nor by Agama, says Justice Chandru
A recent order by the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court – stipulating that non-Hindu visitors to Hindu temples should be asked to declare they believe in the temple's deity – has kicked up a storm in the state. There have been questions on whether such a ruling can be implemented at all, and what drove the court to give such a ruling.
There is no absolute prohibition on non-Hindus from entering the Palani temple in Tamil Nadu, said RM Arun Swaminathan, a Madurai-based lawyer. However, non-Hindu visitors have to declare they believe in the deity and in the customs and traditions of Hindus, he told The Federal.
Board discarded
Swaminathan had appeared on behalf of the petitioner D Senthilkumar, the convenor of Palani Hill Temple Devotees Organisation, who had moved court in June 2023 demanding that boards and signages disallowing non-Hindus into the Palani temple be reinstalled. The board had been removed earlier on the order of "higher authorities" after being on the temple premises for many decades, said the lawyer.
In an interview with The Federal, Swaminathan defended the order, pointing out that "a government cannot make all areas secular because temples are not public spaces". "A temple is a religious spot and has to be visited by those who believe in the deity," he said.
The recent order emphasises that “temples are holy spaces and not public spots” that need to be respected by people of other religions, he asserted. The order requires the temple authorities to record the statement of the people who enter the temple that they believe in the deity, he said, adding that the record will be maintained by the temple.
Applicable to all TN temples
Justice S Srimathy of the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court on Monday directed the Tamil Nadu government and the State Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department to ensure non-Hindus are not permitted to enter beyond the flagpole of the Palani temple (Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple) and its sub-temples in Tamil Nadu.
In her order, she directed that if any non-Hindus visit the temple, the authorities should take an “undertaking” that he or she has faith in the deity, would follow the customs and practices of the Hindu religion and abide by the temple customs.
The judge also said that since the issue raised is a “larger” one, this order is applicable to all temples in TN and not just the Palani temple.
Common practice
According to Swaminathan, it is quite common to see boards and signages disallowing non-Hindus from entering temples all over the state. The Madurai Meenakshi Amman Temple also forbids the entry of non-Hindus, he pointed out. “There’s also a clause in the 1959 TN Religious and Charitable Endowments Act that states that even temple staff should be Hindu,” he added.
In her judgment, Justice Srimathy refused to accept the state government’s fears that installing such boards around the Palani temple and the hilltop where it is situated may hurt the religious sentiments of visitors, who not only visit the sanctum sanctorum but also enjoy the panoramic views from the hilltop.
She said in her judgment: “If a non-Hindu is not having faith and declines to follow the customs and practices of the Hindu religion and declines to follow the temple customs, then the said non-Hindu cannot be allowed and hence there is no question of hurting his sentiments. On the other hand, if the non-Hindu who declines to follow the customs and practices of the Hindu religion and declines to follow the temple customs is allowed inside the temple, it would affect the sentiments of the large number of Hindus who practices the faith as Hindu reverently."
'Constitutionally guaranteed'
Allowing non-Hindus into temples would affect the rights of Hindus guaranteed under the Constitution, added the judge.
It was reported that at the Brihadisvara Temple in Thanjavur, a group of persons belonging to another religion had 'picnicked' on the temple premises, consuming non-vegetarian food. Citing such instances given by the petitioner, Justice Srimathy said they “absolutely interfere” in the fundamental rights guaranteed to Hindus under the Constitution.
“The Hindus also have fundamental right to profess and practise their religion freely and propagate their religion...Therefore, the Hindus have the right to maintain their temples,” said the judge. She also argued that temples are purposefully not included within the purview of Article 15.
Not called for: Justice Chandru
Meanwhile, Justice Chandru called the judgment "strange". “The present order prohibiting non-Hindus from entering Hindu temples is neither called for nor does tradition permit the same," he told The Federal. "Hindu religion is not an organised religion and has no catholic form. There is no definition of the term 'Hindu' in any scripture known to us.”
Even a century ago, the term 'Hindu' was not used in any records, said Chandru. Most people then regarded themselves as either Vaishanavites or Shaivites even in old property records, he pointed out, adding that till the 1940s, even people belonging to Scheduled Castes were not regarded as Hindus.
"A century before, people belong to the Nadar community were not allowed to enter temples on the basis of 'polluting castes'. The temples established under Agama rules prohibited Smartha Brahmins from entering and going beyond the flag mast (dwajasthambam). When there is so much confusion, for the court to take upon the task of imposing sanctions and regulations is uncalled for," he reasoned.
Dress code case
Further, he said, a year ago, a single judge gave a direction to the Hindu Religions and Endowment Board to prescribe a dress code for devotees. That order was set aside by a division bench that held that courts are not suited to give such directions.
“Similarly, as to who should enter a temple is entirely dependent upon each temple and its own tradition and customs. When the Prime Minister mentions Vasudeva Kutumbakam ('the whole world is one'), there is no need for prohibiting anyone from entering temples based on their allegiance to a particular religion. Even during the Ram Mandir Pran Prathishtha, certain Muslim leaders were invited to the function,” Justice Chandru said.
He further recalled Justice Srimathy's earlier order in a policeman transfer case. In that case, the judge had said that her 'karma' constrained her from giving relief to a recalcitrant policeman from a transfer. A division bench, while admitting the appeal against that order, remarked that judges are guided by the Constitution and not by the theory of karma.
Meanwhile, another lawyer, Kasthuri Shankar, posted on X, "Madras High court Madurai branch bars people who do not subscribe to Hinduism from worshipping at Palani Temple. This is a regressive, utterly impractical verdict. Anyway, it cannot be enforced as there is no way to define or verify anyone's innate faith!"
Law on temple entry
The temple entry movement started by A Vathiyarnathier, who headed the Madurai Temple Entry Movement in 1939, largely facilitated access for oppressed classes to the Madurai Meenakshi Amman Temple. After that came the Temple Entry Authorisation and Indemnity Act, 1939 enacted by the then Chief Minister of Madras Presidency, C Rajagopalachari. This was followed by the Temple Entry Authorisation Act of 1947, by Omandur P. Ramasamy Reddy (first Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu) with 11 provisions. The laws reflected the intent of the government to democratise temple worship and give all Hindus access to the sanctum sanctorum.
However, as the Justice Srimathy order pointed out, the Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, was enacted to eradicate discrimination within the HIndu community and did not deal with the temple entry of non-Hindus.
In 1970, then Chief Minister M Karunanidhi repealed 3(A) of the Act and introduced Rule 4-A, allowing entry for all into temples. Rule 4-A was challenged in the Kalyan Dass Vs State of Tamil Nadu case, stating that the ban was lifted in so far as it affected a part of the Hindu Community and not non-Hindus.
Applicable to atheists
The High Court struck down Section 4 in this judgment, Swaminathan told The Federal. The court quashed the insertion of Section 4(A), held the amendment as ultra vires and also held that the state government acted beyond the scope of delegated power conferred by the Constitution.
According to Swaminathan, the new order by Justice Shrimathy also applies to atheists since they have to declare their faith in God before they enter the temples.
If foreigners want to admire the temple architecture they are allowed up to a point. "It is difficult to monitor who enters temples," admitted Swaminathan, for people can enter temples without disclosing their religion. "All we ask is that there should be an indication that they believe in the deity and we will maintain a record," he added.
What triggered the case
This petition by D Senthilkumar was filed when, last year, Shahul, a fruit shop vendor, brought his relatives clad in burqas to the Palani temple and purchased tickets at the winch station to go to the Palani hilltop, where the temple is located.
The authorities tried stopping them, and Shahul argued that there was no board barring the entry of non-Hindus. The family wanted to go to the hilltop to click pictures, Senthilkumar told the court.
The authorities took back the tickets after they saw the burqa-clad women. But, Shahul reportedly argued with the employees, saying, “This is a tourist place. If non-Hindus are not allowed, then you should put up banner.”
This triggered Senthilkumar to move court in June 2023, seeking to restore the boards indicating that non-HIndus are not allowed into temples.
