A division bench at Madurai of Madras High Court held as follows,
From Para 6, (Slipper shot #1)
6. Even though the law has thus been declared in categorical terms, we notice in recent times that there are egregious breaches. Mr.Badrudeen Mustafa, an MLA representing the Madurai Central Constituency where the famed Meenakshi temple is located, went inside the temple premises soon after his election. He claimed that he had a right to inspect if proper amenities are being provided. He also went up the temple towers on the occasion of Kumbabishekam. It is ironical that the said MLA proclaimed that Sanatana Dharma ought to eradicated.
From Para 7, (Slipper shot #2)
7. We take judicial notice of the fact that a Hon’ble Minister who is a Christian by faith, entered Thiruchendur temple without giving the undertaking required from Non-Hindus. We have the illustrious instance of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Shri Joseph Vijay who worshipped Goddess Meenakshi after signing the undertaking. The Hon’ble Chief Minister who is a Christian by faith was not asked to convert to Hinduism. He was only requested to affirm his reverence for the deity. This is what we call as an inclusive approach. We recall instances from the holy life of Kanchi Maha Periyava. When some foreigners and persons belonging to other faiths would express their desire to embrace Hinduism, he not only discouraged them but called upon them to show greater fidelity to their faith. When Justice Ismail of the Madras High Court used to visit him, Periyava respected the great judge’s sentiments by giving him sandal wood paste instead of ‘Viboothi’.
From Para 8, (Slipper shot #3)
8. … We take judicial notice of a video doing rounds in the social media of persons wearing skull caps, pushing their way through in Thiruvannamali Arunachaleswarar temple, notwithstanding the vigorous protests of the devotees. The HR&CE staff stood as mute spectators.
From Para 11, (Slipper shot #4)
11. That is why, we deem it necessary to render an authoritative pronouncement. We made it clear at the very outset that the scope of this judgment is confined to Agamic temples. Lord Ayyapa has devotees cutting across religions. Shirdi Sai Baba is also beyond religion. Both Hindus as well as Muslims claimed him as their own. Of course now, he is more a part of the Hindu pantheon.
From Paras 16 and 17,
16. We do not want to stop with citing precedents. The statutory provisions are equally clear. Section 10 of the HR&CE Act makes it clear that every person from the Commissioner to the last grade servant shall profess the Hindu religion. Section 24(3) of the HR&CE Act makes it clear that even the officers under the Act, shall have due regard to the religious practice or usage, while exercising the right of entry within the premises of the institution. Section 24(4) states that nothing in Section 24 of the Act shall be deemed to authorise any person who is not a Hindu to enter the premises or place referred to in the provision.
17. The petitioner herein is a Hindu. He is entitled to insist that the trustees of the various Agamic temples in Tamil Nadu uphold the Agamic
injunctions by not permitting non-Hindus who do not sign the undertaking from crossing the flag-pole. If such entry is permitted, it would defile the sanctity of the temple. We intend to go a step further. Even entry into the temple premises, cannot be permitted for non-Hindus who sport their religious markers and who do not subscribe their reverence for the deity concerned. This subscription must be in the format prescribed by the institution concerned. We say so by deriving inspiration from Kalyan Dass wherein it was observed that the entire temple precincts has to be held sacrosanct and also the statutory definition found in the 1947 Act. This writ petition is allowed on these terms. No costs.
Citations:
Other Sources:
