KALYAN DASS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of general importance has arisen in this writ petition. The petitioner is challenging the vires of Rule 4-A of the Rules framed by the Government of tamil Nadu in exercise of their power under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Temple entry Authorization Act (Act V of 1947) hereinafter called the Temple Entry Act. The petitioner as a Hindu claims that the Hindu temples in the State are maintained in accordance with certain norms as set out in the Agamas and in strict conformity with the ancient customs and practices. He is a permanent resident of tulasi Babu Mutt at Rameswaram and he is a Matadipati, besides being a regular worshipper of Sri Ramanathaswami temple at Rameshwaram. He is aggrieved by the induction of Rule 4-A by the State Government which was published in the Fort st. George Gazette dated 28-1-1970. Until January, 1970, the Rules did not contemplate non-Hindus to enter or offer worship in a temple or use the waters of any sacred tank, well, spring or any sacred places including a hill or hillock, street, or pathway, which is requisite for obtaining access to the temple. This is contained in the old Rule 3 (a) of the Rules framed under the Temple Entry Act. By the impugned notification a right is given to non-Hindus also, to enter into the Hindu temple precincts, which is prohibited under the ancient and accepted customs annexed to all Hindu temples. The rule violates Articles 25 and 26 of the constitution of India and is said to be discriminatory as well, as the mode and manner of worship at Hindu temples are all matters of religion which are guaranteed by the provisions of the Constitution of India. The present rule enabling non-Hindus to enter Hindu temples not for the purpose of worship but for other purposes, does not further the object or the purpose of the Temple Entry act. Several supporting affidavits are filed by devout Hindus to exemplify the importance of a temple, its Gopurams, its Mandapams etc. A Reference is also made to the purificatory ceremonies undertaken by the temple authorities if any defilement is caused and if anybody dies in the vicinity of the temple. A reference is also made to several Agamas which prescribe that any transgression or pollution, even in the matter of place of worship inside the temple would result in the reconsecration of the deity. Mr. R. Raghava Battar of Srirangam, who is an authority on Parameswara Samhita (Pancharathra Agama) explains what is Artha mandapam. Mahamandapam and Garbagraha and says that if Myleshas (non-Hindus) enter the temple, it is derogatory to the other devotees who worship the lord. If for some reason, they enter the temple, Maha Samprokshanam and shanthi have to be performed. This view is also fortified by another devout Hindu well versed in Saiva Agamas. In the counter affidavit it is sought to be maintained that, as at present, in several temples the trustees allow non-Hindus such as foreigners to go round the vimanam every day without any objection from anybody and that, as temples like the Rameswaram Temple and the Brahadiswarar Temple are all places of tourists' attraction, there is nothing either in the Constitution or in the accepted practice or agamas which can prevent the rule-making authority under the Temple Entry Act to make the challenged rule. It is also submitted that the sanctity of the temple is in no way affected by allowing non-Hindus into certain portions of the temple and that too under certain guidelines as contained in Rule 4-A, which is impugned in these proceedings. The rule is said to be a laudable measure and that it would not in any way conflict or interfere with the freedom of pious and religious Hindus worshipping in the temples. To show as to what portion of the temple is meant by garbagraham Arthamandapa and Mahamandapa several sketches have been filed. One of the Gurukkals of Sri Ramanathaswami temple has come forward to state that the worshippers whoever they may be, are allowed by custom and practice to stand near the entrance to the Arthamantapa and have darshan of the deity. Therefore, the deponent says that it cannot also be said that by non-Hindus entering upto Mahamantapam the right of worship of any person is in any manner interfered with.

(2.) THE main ground of attack against the rule, 4-A, is that the said rule is beyond the legislative competence of the Subordinate Legislature, under its rule-making power. This is because the Act itself only deals with Hindus and the rule extends to non-Hindus. It is said that the rights of Hindus guaranteed under Article 26 of the constitution are violated and the rule is not saved by Article 25 (2) (b) of the constitution. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader contends that the rule is enabling, and does not in any way interfere with the accepted tenets of the hindu Religion and there cannot be any provocation for complaint at all because it is intended to subserve the ideal of secularism without violating the fundamentals of Hindu religion or any practices connected with it.

(3.) BEFORE considering the question involved, it is necessary to understand what is religion, Hindu Religion and a Hindu temple is, and what are its ceremonial precepts. The substratum of any religion lies in the rocky foundation of its ancient beliefs, rituals and practices. Religion is ordinarily referable to the expression of man's belief in and reverence for a superior human power recognized as creator and governor of the universe. Sanctimoniousness is not a necessary creed annexed to a firm religious tenet. But Hindu religion, whose origin is so ancient has maintained throughout, its ethics, practices and mandates, that they have lived to every changing times, but maintaining at all times its pristine usefulness and its inhered capacity to demand respect and reverence to such tenets. The varied facets of such respectable practices is demonstrated in our Puranas, which continue even now as divine guidelines for emancipation. But what was achieved by meditation in Kritayuga, by various sacrifices in Tretayuga, by personal service in Dwaparyuga, can be obtained in Kaliyuga by constant worship and strict adherence to immemorial religious practices. One such accredited practice in hindu religion is worship in temples and that too in a prescribed manner. If there are certain well-laid practices regarding the mode of worship in a Hindu temple and if such ordainments are backed up by Agamas and therefore, are matters connected with the religion, it is not for law courts to lightly ignore such deep-rooted and venerable tenets on the only ground that progressive secularism demands it or logic frowns at it or modern rationalistic enlightenment or civilization does not accept it. I am bound to quote in extenso passages from the dicta of the Supreme Court to support the view that religious practices are reflective of matters concerning religion and if religion is to be venerated, then the practices annexed thereto are equally respectable and they demand compliance, even under our Constitution.