A Controversial Decision: M. The Karunanidhi-led DMK government introduced a rule allowing non-Hindus to enter the temple, provided they followed certain conditions. To justify its decision, the government argued in the Madras High Court that trustees in many temples allowed non-Hindus to visit the vimanam daily. Photo shows the Meenakshi Sundareshwar temple in Madurai. | Photo credit: Hindu Archives
On January 5, 1970, M. The DMK government, led by Karunanidhi, introduced a clause in the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authority Act, popularly known as the Temple Entry Act, to allow non-Hindus to visit temples. According to the new rules, non-Hindus are allowed to enter the temple only when they are not worshiping. They were allowed to enter the mahamandapam, not the ardhamandapam. Non-Hindus were required to inform the temple authorities about the purpose of their visit, obtain a pass and enter the temple with a temple guide. If there was no guide, a temple servant could accompany them. They were to observe the customs of the temples and to protect and respect their general and special sanctity. Such persons are not allowed to take photographs of any part without the permission of the concerned body.
bar in certain classes
Before this rule came into force, certain classes of persons were not allowed to enter the temple or worship or bathe or use water from the sacred tank, well, spring or stream attached to the temple, whether situated inside or outside the temple. Any holy place including hill or hills, road, lane or path necessary to gain access to the temple. They included persons who were not Hindus, “persons subject to pollution arising from birth or death in their family; women at times not permitted by custom and usage to enter the temple; drunken or disorderly persons; persons suffering from any foul or contagious disease; under the proper control and executive of the temple concerned.” Persons of unsound mind, except when taken for worship with the permission of an officer; and ‘professional’ beggars.
Kalyan Das, a permanent resident of the Tulsi Babu Mutt in Rameswaram, approached the Madras High Court against the impugned Rule 4-A. He argued that it violated Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and that the method and manner of worshiping in Hindu temples was a religious matter guaranteed by the Constitution and was discriminatory. Also, he contended that the rule allowing non-Hindus to enter a temple for purposes other than worship did not further the purpose or object of the Temple Entry Act.
‘Sanctity will not be affected’
However, the government argued that in some temples the trustees allowed foreigners like non-Hindus to visit the vimanam every day without any objection. There was nothing in the Constitution or accepted practice or precedent that could prevent the rule-making authority under the Temple Entry Act from enacting a restrictive regime. He said that allowing non-Hindus to enter some parts would not affect the sanctity of the temples.
Justice T. who heard the case. Ramaprasad Rao said, however, that even courts and laws cannot transform temples into antiquities of visual importance meant for public display. It was well known that there could be no right of unrestricted and unrestricted entry into a public temple or other religious institution for persons not connected with spiritual work.
The judge noted earlier that efforts had been made to remove the handicap of certain sections of Hindus from entering temples to respect the government’s policy of non-discrimination among Hindus. But this statutory benefit was always intended to confer privileges on “certain classes of Hindus” and not on non-Hindus. Non-Hindus had no right to enter Hindu temples not for worship but as darshan and tourists, he said.
beyond power
The court ruled that a non-Hindu is not a Hindu. “He belongs to a different class. He cannot, in worldly and social considerations, claim the same privilege or right of a Hindu as regards entry into a Hindu temple. Even the legislature in exercise of its rule-making power cannot treat a non-Hindus as a Hindu by disregarding the policy and intent of the Temple Entry Act. Consequently, in July 1972, the judge ruled, “I am of the view that Rule 4-A is in excess of the power of the rule-making authority” and struck it down.
published – Dec 24, 2024 10:53 pm IST