Family Cannot Prevented Worshipping Village Temple Rules Court

The Madras High Court recently held that no one should be “excommunicated” or “prevented” from entering any temple or worshipping the deity while deciding a plea in which a family was allegedly stopped from entering a temple in Pudhu Kalarampatti in Tamil Nadu’s Dindigul district.

Justice Vitoria L Gowri was hearing a plea filed by a man who, along with his family, was being banished from the community, by being prevented from participating in the temple festivals, and the temple tax given by the man’s family was also not being accepted by the persons concerned.

“Making it clear that no person can be excommunicated or prevented from entering a temple and worshipping the deity therein, it is directed that the private respondents shall not excommunicate the petitioner or any other person in the locality from participating in the festivals of the aforesaid temples,” the June 16 order read.

Advocate W Cleetus, appearing for the man, submitted that the man and his family members were being prevented by certain people from participating in the temple festivals of Arulmigu Kaliamman Temple, Mariamman Temple, and Sri Bhagavathi Amman Temple situated at Pudhu Kalarampatti Village, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

He further urged that the authorities had also refused to receive the temple tax payable by the man’s family.

The counsel submitted that despite his client’s representation to the authorities concerned, no action was taken.

Advocates D Rajaboopathy and MR Priyanka Jothi, representing the authorities, submitted that the authorities would ensure that no individual was stopped from entering, participating in or worshipping at the temples.

It was further submitted by the counsels that adequate measures would be taken to maintain peace and public order.

The Madras High Court held that no person can be excluded or banished from a religious community or prevented from entering a temple and worshipping the deity therein, and directed that no one shall banish the man, his family, or any other person in the locality from the religious community or from participating in the festivals of the temples.

The court also noted that, as per the submission of the counsel for the man, the temple festival was ongoing and hence directed the advocate for the authorities to instruct the police to make sure that the man and his family were permitted to participate in the temple festival without any fear, obstruction, or hindrance.

The police were also ordered to make sure that the temple tax given by the man’s family was received immediately and that no discrimination was shown towards them.

In an unrelated case, the Supreme Court said that the management or supervision of a temple cannot by itself establish ownership on temple property, setting aside the findings of the Rajasthan High Court and a Kota trial court in a dispute that has remained in litigation for nearly five decades.

The case was about a registered society and its members who claimed that the temple belonged to the Gurjar Goud Brahmin Rampura Society, Kota. The society asserted that it had long exercised administrative control over the temple and used to appoint caretakers or pujaris to manage religious affairs and temple properties. The suit property included the temple, idols, ornaments, agricultural land and shops attached to the religious institution.

The Supreme Court held that documents relied upon by the plaintiffs merely reflected arrangements concerning management of the temple and appointment of pujaris. Such documents, the court said, could not be treated as evidence of ownership.

Holding that the society had failed to produce any legally admissible evidence proving title, the court dismissed the suit filed by a Kota-based religious society seeking possession and control of an ancient temple and its properties.