The Madras High Court recently expanded the scope of treating a deity as a juristic personality in law and held that when an idol in a temple is treated as a living person, closing the temple without allowing the customary pujas would amount to the deity’s imprisonment. The court observed that no temple could be locked and sealed on the grounds of law and order.
“Once it is understood that the idol housed in a temple is to be treated as a living person, closure of the temple without the customary poojas would amount to its imprisonment. Even prison inmates are fed properly and their basic necessities are met,” the court observed.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that just like how a devotee has the right to offer worship, the deity also has a right to observance of the customary rituals. The court highlighted that it had to exercise parens patriae jurisdiction whenever the interests of minors, the mentally ill, and idols were at stake and thus, it was the duty of the court to uphold the right of the parties to perform rituals. The court thus made it clear that as long as there was no practice of untouchability or other practices offending the rights of others, a temple could not be closed or shut down indefinitely.
“So long as there is no practice of untouchability or offending the rights of others, a temple cannot be closed or shut down indefinitely. This is as much the right of a devotee to offer worship as well as the right of the deity to observance of the customary rituals. Court has to exercise parens patriae jurisdiction when the interest of minor, the mentally ill and idols are at stake,” the court said.
The court added that though the administration could not remain a mute spectator whenever there was obstruction, exercising the easy option of closing down the temple would be illegal, arbitrary, and at the height of arbitrariness. The court added that the same would be a clear breach of rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution.
The court also noted that the religious freedom guaranteed under Article 25 and Article 16 of the Constitution was not limited to matters of doctrine but extended to acts done in furtherance of religion and contained a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral part of the religion.
The court was hearing a petition filed to forbear the authorities from stopping the Pillaimar Community from opening the Sri Muthalamman and Sri Mariyamman Temple situated in Uthapuram Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District and performing the customary puja.
In 2010, disputes arose between Pillaimar community and the Pallar community over an untouchability wall. Though petitions were filed, it was disposed of after the parties arrived at an agreement. In 2014, disputes arose again after persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste community wanted to introduce new forms of worship. Following this, the temple was closed and remained closed for 10 years. The petition was thus filed to not prevent Pillaimar Community from opening the temple and offering the customary worship.
The authorities informed the court that the temple was closed by the Pillaimar community on their won and that the authorities had not passed any orders for closing the temple or locking the temple.
The court was however not ready to accept this submission. The court noted that if the Pillaimar community, on their own volition had locked the temple, they would not have come to the court seeking a prayer to not forbear them from performing puja. The court noted that the petition was filed because the community members had an apprehension that the authorities may react adversely.
Noting that the current condition of the temple was “truly pathetic”, the court ordered that the temple be opened forthwith and be kept open for worship during the usual hours. The court also asked the parties to adhere to the agreement. The court also asked the police to register an FIR if any law and order arises.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, For Mr.S.Senthur Pandian
Counsel for Respondents: Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Addl. Government Pleader, Mr.A.Albert James Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
Case Title: G Pandi v The District Collector and Others
Case No: W.P(MD)No.17824 of 2024
){kind=link}