Temple Closure For Years In The Name Of Maintaining Peace Dereliction Of Duty: Madras High Court Raps Collector & Police
The case involved claims of caste-based denial of temple entry.
Justice B. Pugalendhi, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
The Madras High Court has come down heavily on the police and administrative authorities for keeping a public temple closed for years under the pretext of maintaining public order.
The Court observed that the indefinite closure of the temple violated the constitutional rights of the devotees and reflected a serious failure on the part of the authorities to perform their duties.
A Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi held, “This Court records its strong disapproval and condemnation of such a report. The closure of a public temple, not for days or weeks but for years, under the guise of a law and order concern, is a dereliction of constitutional duty. The District Collector, as the top officer of the District, cannot escape his duty by simply saying there may be trouble. If there is any real threat, it is his responsibility to handle it using the State machinery.”
The Court added, “Equally disturbing is the role of the District Police. They seem to think that the only way to keep peace is by denying entry to everyone. This is wrong. Stopping everyone from entering is not the way to maintain peace. It is the job of the police to make sure that rights are protected, and that anyone who breaks the law is dealt with properly. The law cannot treat the oppressor and the oppressed as equals.”
Advocate R.Vidhya appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate F. Deepak appeared for the Respondents.
Background
The dispute before the Court centered around allegations that Scheduled Caste (SC) devotees were being denied entry into the Arulmigu Mariamman Temple in Chinna Dharapuram, Karur District. One petition was filed by the Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai, which sought police protection for its trustees and the temple. Another petitioner, a man named Marimuthu, asked the Court to issue directions to open the temple and allow worship for all devotees.
While one group claimed that SC devotees were being discriminated against and not permitted entry, the opposing side denied such allegations and asserted their right to manage the temple affairs.
Findings
The High Court found the allegations of caste-based exclusion extremely troubling. It remarked, “It is shocking that even after 75 years of independence, people are still being kept out of temples because of their caste. The Constitution of India does not allow discrimination among devotees. God does not belong to any one caste. He does not discriminate. Only human beings do.”
The temple, the Court noted, is under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department. The Court stressed that it was the duty of the HR&CE Department and the State Government to ensure that no individual is denied the right to worship in a public temple. The administration had an obligation to intervene and restore normalcy instead of taking the easy route of shutting down access.
The Court put forward a strong example of how such situations can be resolved is the Kandadevi Temple festival in Sivagangai District, which was successfully conducted in June 2024 after being stalled for 17 years due to caste tensions. The Court added, “That success was not because they avoided conflict, but because they showed firm leadership and commitment to the Constitution. This shows that equality and peace can go hand in hand, if officials are willing to act. The same could have been done here — but was not. The Government must remember that peace built by denying rights is not real peace, it is surrender.”
The High Court directed the District Collector to submit an affidavit explaining the reasons behind the temple’s closure since 2018. The Collector was also asked to clarify why steps were not taken to facilitate joint worship with adequate police protection.
Furthermore, the Superintendent of Police was ordered to provide an update on the current law and order situation in the area.
Cause Title: Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate R.Vidhya
Respondents: Advocates F.Deepak, E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, S.Gokulraj, S.S.Madhavan
