Coming down heavily on a Petitioner seeking direction that the non-Hindus should not be permitted to participate in the Kumbabishegam festival of Arulmighu Adikesava Perumal Thirukovil at Thiruvattar, the Madras High Court held that a person belonging to any religion should neither be prevented nor prohibited entry into a temple.

Madras High Court passed an order on the 4th of July that could open Pandora’s box. In response to a PIL about not allowing the entry of non-Hindus during the Kumbabishegam festival of Arulmighu Adikesava Perumal Thirukovil at Thiruvattar, the Madras HC said that those non-Hindus who have faith in the deity cannot be prevented from entering the temple or offering prayers to the deity.

The petition was filed by one C. Soman in light of an invitation circulated for the conduct of the Kumbabishegam festival wherein the name of a Minister who is a Christian also finds mention.

The prayer in the petition said:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to permit the Non-Hindus to enter the temple premises during Kumbabishegam festival in the Arulmighu Adikesava Perumal Thirukovil at Thiruvattar, Kanyakumari District and subsequent event scheduled on 06.07.2022.

Justice PN Prakash and Justice R Hemalatha approached the issue with a broader perspective. The court even went on to give examples of temples playing songs rendered by Dr. KJ Yesudas, a Christian by birth, and how Hindu Worshippers visited Vailankanni Church and Nagore Dargah regularly.

Additionally, the court also pointed out that when such a public function as the Kumbhabhishegam of a temple is performed, it would be impossible for the authorities to check the religious identity of every person to permit entry into the temple.

In light of the same, the court dismissed the petition as being devoid of merits.

The Court said :

"In our considered opinion, when a public festival like the Kumababishegam of a temple is performed, it will be impossible for the authorities to check the religious identity of every devotee for the purpose of permitting his entry into the temple. That apart, if a person belonging to another religion, has faith in a particular Hindu deity, that cannot be prevented nor can his entry into a temple be prohibited. It is common knowledge that the devotional songs of Dr.K.J.Yesudas, a Christian by birth, rendered on various Hindu Gods are played without any demur in temples. In fact, in Nagore Dargah and Vailankanni Church, scores of Hindus worship"

Case Title: C.Soman v. The Secretary, HR&CE and others

Case No: W.P.(MD) No.14081 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 291

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.Murugapandi

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Addl. Advocate General Mr. M.Lingadurai, Spl. Government Pleader for R1 to R3, Mr.K.Sathiya Singh for R4

There are certain operative parts of what the Madras HC said, taking a “broader perspective” on the issue and dismissing the PIL, saying it was “devoid of merits”.

1. It would be impossible for the authorities to determine who is a Hindu and who is not.
2. If a Christian has faith in a Hindu deity, then they can’t be stopped from entering the Temple.
3. KJ Yesudas, a Christian by birth, has sung many devotional songs in Temples.

The Court in this judgment appears to have swam into an area that can mess everything up. The Judiciary can't decide the Hindu confidence and what individual sanctuaries and celebrations ought to or shouldn't do. Such decisions can likewise affect the acts of a few different shrines in India.

For instance, the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple permits just Hindus and the individuals who announce their faith to be Hinduism to enter the sanctuary and offer prayers. The Court, in its insight, didn't have any desire to take a 'parochial view' yet a 'wide point of view', notwithstanding, such proclamations can then be utilized to request that non-Hindus be permitted in a few different sanctuaries where rules direct that no one but Hindus can offer prayers.

The court additionally said that in the event that a non-Hindu has confidence in the Hindu god, he can't be halted from entering the Temple. A question of faith can not be entirely resolved by the court, for sure. As a matter of fact, when the court says that the organization can not figure out who is a Hindu and who isn't, it needs to consider that laying out the faith of a non-Hindu in a Hindu god is undeniably more troublesome.

KJ Yesudas, who is a Christian by birth and has sung numerous devotional melodies, is likewise expected to move toward the court to look for consent to enter the Sree Padmanabhaswamy sanctuary. Indeed, even for this situation, it was the Temple advisory group that had consistently chosen to allow Yesudas to enter the sanctuary and offer prayers, not the judiciary. "Sree Padmanabhaswamy sanctuary executive board had chosen to allow Yesudas to visit Padmanabhaswamy sanctuary. Yesudas recorded an endeavor that he has a devotion to the Hindu faith and is prepared to follow the sanctuary customs," V Ratheesan, an individual from the sanctuary's leader panel, had said. "The choice was consistent… all individuals who partook in the gathering consented to acknowledge the legendary singer's solicitation. Presently, we will officially illuminate him about the sanctuary board's choice… It really depends on him to choose the date of the visit to the altar," Mr. Ratheesan had said.

In a perfect world, the Court ought to have basically excused the case saying that it is a choice that the sanctuary needs to take freely, without the impedance of the court, to decide whether they wish to permit non-Hindus or not.

The Judiciary frequently takes a gander at Hinduism from an Abrahamic view where standards of widespread ethics should be applied, in any case, in Hinduism, each sanctuary and each Sampradaya would have its own customs and culture. On account of Sabarimala, the shock was exactly consequently. Ladies, who didn't have a place with the Sampradaya needed to dictate what devotees ought to or shouldn't do. They needed to force their cutting-edge moral development or wokism on the devotees who simply needed to follow the practice of the divinity they had confidence in. Notwithstanding, the Judiciary meddled and accepted to direct the shapes of the Hindu faith.

Justice Indu Malhotra, who had given a dissenting view in 2018, had said:

Justice Malhotra observed that religion can lay down a code of ethics, and also prescribe rituals, ceremonies, etc. which are also regarded as an integral part of religion and hence are to be protected as a religious belief. She said, “The religious practice of restricting the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years, is in pursuance of an ‘essential religious practice’ followed by the Respondents. The said restriction has been consistent, followed at the Sabarimala Temple for years.” 

She had further said:

“In a pluralistic society comprising of people with diverse faiths, beliefs, and traditions, to entertain PILs challenging religious practices followed by any group, sect or denomination, could cause serious damage to the constitutional and secular fabric of this country.”

It is without a doubt a fact that assuming the courts begin concluding what the shapes of the Hindu confidence are, it would hurt the mainstream texture of the country and encroach on the right of each and every Hindu to rehearse their faith freely. In this situation, it is to be remembered that the Temple welcomed the non-Hindu for the celebration and a devotee had moved toward the court. In my own view, the court ought to have just said that it will concede to the insight of the Temple and not meddle one way or the other. Notwithstanding, to foist their own sensibilities and offer remarks likewise, to characterize how a Temple's direct ought to be, is a hazardous way to step. Hinduism isn't a monolith and impedance by the court just urges sanctuary practices to be encroached upon. The remarks, for this situation, could have broad implications and affect a few different cases, where Hindu practices are wantonly tested.