Madras High Court Upholds Right Against Untouchability in Temples
The Madras High Court has affirmed that denying entry to individuals from Scheduled Castes into Hindu temples on the basis of caste is tantamount to untouchability. This practice violates the constitutional rights enshrined under Article 17, which prohibits untouchability. The ruling was delivered in the case Sundaram Vs District Collector by Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy.
Justice Chakravarthy stated unequivocally that no individual should be barred from entering a temple or participating in temple festivals due to caste. He emphasized, “If any person prevents another from entering the temple on casteist grounds, especially someone from a Scheduled Caste, it constitutes a practice of untouchability and breaches the fundamental right under Article 17 of the Constitution of India.” The Court also noted that anyone responsible for such actions could face legal prosecution.
Case Background and Court Proceedings
The judgment arose from a petition filed by V. Sundaram, who sought equal representation for the Milagu Kattan Adidravidar Community during the Arulmigu Muthu Mariamman Temple chariot festival in Ramanayakkanpalayam, Salem district. Sundaram requested that district authorities ensure the community’s equal participation in the festival alongside other groups. He also sought orders against private parties who allegedly hindered this participation.
During the proceedings, the Tamil Nadu government informed the Court that a peace committee meeting had been convened, allowing all individuals to partake in the festival, irrespective of caste or creed. The government argued that the petition was moot since participation was inclusive, although it acknowledged that disputes about “Karaikarargal rights” should be resolved in civil court.
Future Assurances and Legal Framework
Despite the government’s assurances, Senior Counsel for Sundaram pressed for measures to prevent such exclusions in future festivals. The Court underscored the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, which prohibits caste-based restrictions on temple entry.
Justice Chakravarthy remarked, “This Court has repeatedly ordered that on the non-existent basis of ‘caste,’ no one can be excluded from temple entry or festival participation.” The State assured the Court that discrimination would not recur in subsequent festivals.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that any disputes regarding the administration or rights related to the festival could be addressed through the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments framework or relevant civil courts. Given that the festival was ongoing and inclusive participation was achieved, the Court concluded the petition.
Representing the petitioner was Senior Advocate S. Hajanazirudeen, instructed by advocate M. Rajendiran. Special Government Pleader Inthu Karunakaran appeared for the revenue authorities, Government Advocate Durai Gunasekaran represented the police, and Advocate G. Mohammed Aseef appeared for the private respondents.
