Caste, In Itself, Is Not A 'Religious Denomination’; No Caste Can Claim Ownership Of Temples: Madras High Court
A petition was filed to direct the HR & CE Department to approve a recommendation to separate the administration of the Arulmighu Ponkaliamman Temple from a group of other temples.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court ruled that no caste can claim ownership of a temple, and the administration of a temple based on caste identity is not a protected religious practice under the Constitution of India.
The case arose from a petition to direct the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Department to approve a recommendation to separate the administration of the Arulmighu Ponkaliamman Temple from a group of other temples, including the Arulmighu Mariamman, Angalamman, and Perumal Temples.
A Bench of Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy said, “The temple is a public temple and, as such, can be worshipped, managed, and administered by all devotees. Even a social group identifying itself by the name of the caste may have a particular way of worship and will be entitled to their customary rights regarding that manner of worship. Caste, in itself, is not a 'religious denomination.'
It added, "Believers in caste discrimination try to disguise their hatred and inequality under the guise of ‘religious denomination,’ viewing temples as fertile ground for nurturing these divisive instincts and creating social unrest. Many public temples are being labeled as belonging to a particular ‘caste.’ Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India protect only essential religious practices and the rights of religious denominations. No caste can claim ownership of a temple. The administration of the temple based on caste identity is not a religious practice. This matter is no longer res integra."
The petitioner argued that the Ponkaliamman Temple had historically been managed by members of his caste, while the other temples were administered by individuals from various castes.
However, the Court strongly dismissed the petitioner's stance, criticizing it for fostering caste division and perpetuating caste-based distinctions. The Court remarked that the petitioner's request was steeped in caste perpetuation and expressed disdain for the notion that different castes could be considered "different creatures." The Court emphasized that the temple in question was a public temple, open to all devotees for worship, and could not be administered on the basis of caste.
Referencing past judgments, the Court reiterated that caste is a social evil, and any actions that promote or perpetuate caste distinctions are contrary to the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution. The Court cited the judgment in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of UP, reinforcing the idea that the right to administer a temple cannot be claimed on the grounds of caste.
The Court added, “When no religious denomination or essential practice of religion is involved, the protection does not extend. Thus, the claim that only particular caste owns a temple or the caste members alone can be Trustees of the temple in general does not come within the exceptions carved out and under the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 and as such, should be tested within the secular fabric and thus, cannot stand scrutiny of the Constitutional goal, and public policy, that is against perpetuation of caste.”
Cause Title: C Ganesan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department & Anr., [2025:MHC:572]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates TS Vijaya Raghavan, Rajalakshmi EN, Raji B, and Govindasamy D
Respondent: Additional Government Pleader Ravi Chandran
