“No caste can claim ownership of a temple. The administration of the temple based on caste identity is not a religious practice. This matter is no longer res integra,” the judgment declared.
Madras: The Madras High Court ruled that no caste can claim ownership of a temple or administer it based on caste identity. The Court clarified that such a practice is not a protected religious right under the Indian Constitution.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court: Temple Festivals Must Include All Hindus, No Caste-Based Invites
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed a plea seeking separate administration of a temple based on caste identity.
Justice Chakravarthy observed that caste-based control over temples is not a religious right. He stated that while communities may have certain worship traditions, a caste itself is not a recognized ‘religious denomination’ under the law.
He further criticized attempts to disguise caste discrimination under the pretense of religious identity, stating:
“Believers in caste discrimination try to disguise their hatred and inequality under the guise of ‘religious denomination,’ viewing temples as fertile ground for nurturing these divisive instincts and creating social unrest. Many public temples are being labeled as belonging to a particular ‘caste.’”
The Court emphasized that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India protect only essential religious practices and religious denominations, not caste-based temple administration.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: “UGC Must Be Given Teeth to Punish Caste Discrimination in Colleges”
“No caste can claim ownership of a temple. The administration of the temple based on caste identity is not a religious practice. This matter is no longer res integra,” the judgment declared.
The case involved a petition requesting the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department to approve a recommendation to separate the administration of Arulmighu Ponkaliamman Temple from a group of temples that included Arulmighu Mariamman, Angalamman, and Perumal Temples.
The petitioner argued that the other three temples were managed by individuals from various castes, whereas the Ponkaliamman Temple had historically been maintained by people from his caste alone. However, the Court firmly rejected this argument, stating that such claims promote caste divisions and go against the constitutional vision of a caste-free society.
Justice Chakravarthy strongly criticized the petitioner’s request, remarking that it was filled with caste-based bias.
“The petitioner’s request oozed with caste perpetuation and hatred for other fellow human beings as if they are different creatures.”
The Court reaffirmed that temples are public places of worship and should be accessible to all, stating:
“The temple is a public temple and, as such, can be worshipped, managed, and administered by all devotees.”
Justice Chakravarthy cited earlier judgments that condemned caste-based discrimination and emphasized that courts cannot support anything that perpetuates caste divisions.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of UP, which established that temple administration rights cannot be claimed based on caste.
It reiterated that only essential religious practices and religious denominations with distinct philosophies qualify for protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
“Thus, the claim that only particular caste owns a temple or the caste members alone can be Trustees of the temple in general does not come within the exceptions carved out and under the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 and as such, should be tested within the secular fabric and thus, cannot stand scrutiny of the Constitutional goal, and public policy, that is against perpetuation of caste.”
Case Title: C Ganesan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department
