Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. A question of general importance has arisen in this writ petition. The petitioner is challenging the vires of Rule 4-A of the Rules framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in exercise of their power under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act (Act V of 1947) hereinafter called the Temple Entry Act. The petitioner as a Hindu claims that the Hindu temples in the State are maintained in accordance with certain norms as set out in the Agamas and in strict conformity with the ancient customs and practices. He is a permanent resident of Tulasi Babu Mutt at Rameswaram and he is a Matadipati, besides being a regular worshipper of Sri Ramanathaswami temple at Rameshwaram. He is aggrieved by the induction of Rule 4-A by the State Government which was published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 28-1-1970. Until January, 1970, the Rules did not contemplate non-Hindus to enter or offer worship in a temple or use the waters of any sacred tank, well, spring or any sacred places including a hill or hillock, street, or pathway, which is requisite for obtaining access to the temple. This is contained in the old Rule 3(a) of the Rules framed under the Temple Entry Act. By the impugned notification a right is given to non-Hindus also, to enter into the Hindu temple precincts, which is prohibited under the ancient and accepted customs annexed to all Hindu temples. The rule violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and is said to be discriminatory as well, as the mode and manner of worship at Hindu temples are all matters of religion which are guaranteed by the provisions of the Constitution of India. The present rule enabling non-Hindus to enter Hindu temples not for the purpose of worship but for other purposes, does not further the object or the purpose of the Temple Entry Act.

11. The doctrine of exclusion no doubt has suffered various inroads due again to the march of law and advanced socialistic principles at one time based on base sanctimoniousness. Our Constitution itself has abolished untouchability in all forms. Even prior to the induction of Article 17 in our Constitution, our law makers, particularly, in the State of Tamil Nadu, removed certain caste disabilities amongst certain classes of Hindus by enacting the Malabar Temple Entry Act and the present Temple Entry Act. Prior to these enactment's a social evil pervaded the Hindu community which excluded certain classes of Hindus from enjoying certain privileges which included the rights of entry of such depressed classes into the temple. This ban was removed by legislation. But it is to be noted that the ban was lifted in so far as it affected a part of the Hindu Community and no non-Hindus. It is in this light that the observations of the Supreme Court in become relevant. There the Supreme Court was considering the vires of Section 21 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Act 19 of 1951). That section empowered the Commissioner and his subordinate officers and also persons authorized by them to enter the premises of any religious institution or place of worship for the purpose of exercising any power conferred or any duty imposed by or under the Act.

"An Act to authorize entry into the Hindu temples in the Province of Madras and the offer of worship therein by all classes of Hindus. The preamble to the Temple Entry Act refers to the accredited policy of the State Government. It reads as follows :--

"Whereas it is the policy of Provincial Government to remove the disabilities imposed on certain classes of Hindus against entry into Hindu temples in the Province;

And whereas the Provincial Government are satisfied, from the rapidity with which, under pressure of Hindu public opinion, a number of temples have been thrown open to certain classes of Hindus in recent months, under the provisions of the Madras Temple Entry Authorization and Indemnity Act, 1939, that the time has now arrived for (throwing open to all classes of Hindus every Hindu temple in the Province).

And whereas the Provincial Government consider that the provisions of the said Act are inadequate for the early and complete implementation of the policy of the Provincial Government aforesaid."

15. The basic intention was to remove certain disabilities thrust on certain classes of Hindus. We have no reference whatsoever to non-Hindus in this Act.

16. Section 2(1) of the Temple Entry Act defines a temple.

"(1) 'Temple' means a place, by whatever name known which is dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by the Hindu Community or any section thereof as a place of public religious worship, and includes subsidiary shrines and mandapams attached to such place."