Non-Hindus Not Signing Undertaking Can't Cross Flag-Pole In Agamic Temples: Madras High Court Reiterates
The Bench noted that temple usages, customs, and sanctity cannot be compromised by political sycophancy (chamchagiri) or public display of religious optics; judgment confined to Agamic temples.
The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench has held that non-Hindus who do not sign the undertaking cannot be permitted to cross the flag-pole in Agamic temples in Tamil Nadu. The Court went a step further and held that even entry into the temple premises cannot be permitted for non-Hindus who sport their religious markers and do not subscribe their reverence for the deity concerned. This subscription must be in the format prescribed by the institution.
On that temple usages, customs, and sanctity cannot be compromised by political sycophancy ("chamchagiri") or public display of religious optics, the Bench asserted that the duties of trustees to maintain customary usage and protect the shrine remain paramount. The Court clarified that while Agamic injunctions restricting access can no longer be applied against any class of Hindus, as the Constitution ranks paramount and regressive theological rules must give way, those very injunctions continue to hold good in respect of non-Hindus who do not sign the required undertaking. The Bench also explicitly stated that the scope of its judgment is strictly confined to Agamic temples.
A Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Dr. Justice P. Murugan observed, “The petitioner herein is a Hindu. He is entitled to insist that the trustees of the various Agamic temples in Tamil Nadu uphold the Agamic injunctions by not permitting non-Hindus who do not sign the undertaking from crossing the flag-pole. If such entry is permitted, it would defile the sanctity of the temple. We intend to go a step further. Even entry into the temple premises, cannot be permitted for non-Hindus who sport their religious markers and who do not subscribe their reverence for the deity concerned. This subscription must be in the format prescribed by the institution concerned. We say so by deriving inspiration from Kalyan Dass wherein it was observed that the entire temple precincts has to be held sacrosanct and also the statutory definition found in the 1947 Act….”.
“We decided to go back to the fundamentals. Can it be said that the presence of certain persons in the vicinity of the deity can be said to cause pollution or defilement? Agamas have definite and clear injunctions in this regard. Certain classes of Hindus were not even permitted to cross the flag-pole. But such Agamic injunctions can no longer pass muster. Constitution ranks paramount and such regressive theological injunctions have to necessarily give way. But we hasten to add that those injunctions will hold good in respect of non-Hindus who do not sign the undertaking”, the Bench noted further.
Advocate G. Aravinthsamy appeared for the petitioner and P.V. Balasubramanian, Additional Advocate General appeared for the respondent.
“Not only Chamchagiri but also optics matters in a democracy. We know of one political leader, who is a fundamentalist subscribing to a non-Hindu faith. But he would make it a point to visit the temple and also prominently display the religious mark on his forehead. This was to play to the gallery. The vote value of such a display, is obvious. We hold that usages and customs of temple cannot kneel down before such display of Chamchagiri and optics”, it said.
The petitioner, a Hindu, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to enquire into violations of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947 and to enforce Sections 23 and 24(4) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959. He relied on a complaint dated October 17, 2026 and also prayed for enquiry committees and a complaints section.
The Additional Advocate General submitted that the procedure laid down in the relevant laws and rules was being followed and would continue to be followed. The Court observed that Justice T. Ramaprasada Rao in Kalyan Dass v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) and Justice S. Srimathy in D. Senthilkumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2024) had already addressed the question. It nevertheless proceeded to render an authoritative pronouncement in view of recent developments, including instances of entry by public figures and a video from Thiruvannamalai.
Applying the expanded definition of “temple” in the 1947 Act, which includes subsidiary shrines and mandapams, the Bench relied on Gopala Moopanar, Sankaralinga Nadan, Venkataramana Devaru and Seshammal. It noted that these decisions cast a duty on trustees to maintain temple usage and protect the image from pollution or defilement, and held that they apply in respect of non-Hindus. It also referred to Sections 10, 24(3) and 24(4) of the HR&CE Act. The Court held that temple usages and customs cannot yield to political display. It endorsed the conclusion in Kalyan Dass but disapproved one of its reasons, on processions passing mosques.
The Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner is entitled to insist that trustees of Agamic temples uphold Agamic injunctions by not permitting non-Hindus who have not signed the undertaking to cross the flag-pole.
Cause Title: Thangam Venkatesh v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., WP(MD) No. 30452 of 2026
Appearances:
Petitioner: G. Aravinthsamy, Advocate.
Respondents: P.V. Balasubramanian, Additional Advocate General, M.P. Senthil, Government Pleader.