Permissive Entry Authorised By Thanthri: Kerala High Court Rejects Challenge To Entry Of Christian Priests Into Parthasarathy Temple

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a devotee questioning the legality of permitting two Christian priests to enter the temple premises during a Sreekrishna Jayanthi celebration. The petitioner contended that the priests’ entry, particularly in their clerical robes, violated statutory prohibitions on entry by non-Hindus and sought disciplinary action against temple authorities.

A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar, while observing that the “two Christian priests entered the temple premises and offered prayers not as members of the general public, but strictly in their capacity as invitees and guests”, further held that “such a permissive and ceremonial entry, in our considered view, cannot be construed as a violation of the provisions of the Act, the Rules framed thereunder, or the established rites, usages and customs governing the temple”.

Background

The dispute arose after two Christian priests attended a public function organised within the temple compound as part of festive celebrations. Following the event, they were permitted to enter the temple and offer prayers. The petitioner alleged that this amounted to a violation of the statutory scheme regulating temple entry and the customs governing the temple.

The temple authorities and the Devaswom Board clarified that permission for entry had been expressly obtained from the Thanthri, the ritual authority of the temple, and that the entry was ceremonial in nature. They maintained that no rites or customs were violated.

Court’s Observations

At the outset, the Kerala High Court invoked the classical injunction “Matru Devo Bhava, Pitru Devo Bhava, Acharya Devo Bhava, Atithi Devo Bhava,” drawn from the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, a part of the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka of the Krishna Yajurveda, to underline the civilisational principle that a guest is to be treated with reverence equivalent to that accorded to a parent or teacher.

The Court then examined the scheme of the 1965 Act and the Rules, observing that the statute was enacted to remove discrimination among classes and sections of Hindus and to secure access to public places of worship. The Court noted that while the Rules include a clause restricting the entry of non-Hindus, the Act itself does not expressly prohibit such entry.

Central to the Court’s reasoning was the status of the Thanthri. The Bench underscored that the Thanthri “occupies a pivotal and sacrosanct position in the temple hierarchy and is traditionally regarded as the spiritual custodian and ritual authority — often described as the father of the deity”.

The Court held that “an entry permitted by the Thanthri, in the capacity of an Athithi (guest) or a special invitee, is fundamentally distinct from an entry claimed as a matter of right”, further stating that such an entry cannot be construed as a violation of the provisions of the Act.

The Court also noted an apparent tension between the parent Act and the rule restricting the entry of non-Hindus. Relying on established principles governing delegated legislation, the Court reiterated that subordinate rules cannot override or expand beyond the parent statute. It observed that the Rules are primarily intended to maintain order, decorum, and ritual propriety rather than to function as rigid exclusionary provisions detached from context.

The Court further emphasised that statutory interpretation must advance social harmony and constitutional values. Law, it observed, “ought not to be permitted to become instruments for fomenting discord or disharmony between different religions, castes, sub-castes or communities. Instead, regulatory frameworks must be applied in a manner that preserves religious autonomy while promoting coexistence and mutual respect, the Court remarked.

While stating that it is for the Government to examine whether the rule requires reconsideration to align with legislative intent and constitutional principles, since no formal challenge to the rule’s validity was before the Court, it refrained from issuing directions on that question.

Conclusion

Holding that the priests’ entry was a ceremonial, guest-based permission authorised by the temple’s ritual authority, and not an assertion of statutory right, the High Court concluded that no violation of the governing legal framework had occurred.

The reliefs sought were therefore declined, and the writ petition was dismissed without costs.

Cause Title: Sanil Narayanan Nampoothiri v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:7100)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates R. Krishna Raj and E.S. Soni

Respondents: G. Biju, Standing Counsel, Advocates Renjith R., Anju Mohan, with Advocates Krishnanunni & Jacob P. Alex (Amici Curiae)

Click here to read/download Judgment