A signed undertaking, in the temple’s own format, is the condition: non-Hindus who do not sign it cannot go past the flag-pole of an Agamic temple in Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court has held, and the rule stops at Agamic temples.
Madurai: Non-Hindus who do not sign an undertaking affirming reverence for the presiding deity and adherence to the temple’s customs cannot be allowed to cross the flag-pole of an Agamic temple, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled, adding that the undertaking must follow the format prescribed by the institution concerned [Thangam Venkatesh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others].
In its order of October 23, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice Dr. P. Murugan allowed the writ petition on these terms, without costs.
Custom, statute and the Constitution
The temple’s customs and the statutory scheme, in particular Sections 10, 24(3) and 24(4) of the HR&CE Act, make the position clear, the Bench held, and trustees are under a duty to maintain customary usage. On the tension with the Constitution, it said:
Constitution ranks paramount and such regressive theological injunctions have to necessarily give way
Even so, the Court held, the agamic injunctions continue to hold good for non-Hindus who do not sign the undertaking. Those who display their religious markers and do not express reverence for the deity cannot be permitted entry even into the temple premises. Observing that temple usage cannot bend to political display, it said:
usages and customs of temple cannot kneel down before such display of Chamchagiri and optics
Restrictions on temple entry that were historically imposed on certain Hindu castes, the Court also observed, cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
What Mr. Venkatesh asked for
Thangam Venkatesh of Madurai, the petitioner, sought a writ of mandamus directing the HR&CE Department officials to enquire into his complaint of October 17, 2026, to enforce the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947 and Sections 23 and 24(4) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and to set up enquiry committees and a complaints section to stop persons bearing other religious symbols, and non-adherents, from entering restricted sanctums and mandapams.
The State, through the Additional Advocate General, submitted that existing procedures were being followed and would continue to be followed. The Bench nonetheless chose to render an authoritative pronouncement on the question it framed: whether non-Hindus can enter the precincts of an Agamic temple.
Earlier decisions the Court read
The Bench began with Gopala Moopanar v. Dharmakarta Subramaniya Iyer (1914) and the Privy Council’s Sankaralinga Nadan v. Raja Rajeswara Dorai (1908), and moved on to the Constitution Bench decisions in Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1957) and Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972). It also noted the 2024 directions in D. Senthilkumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu, which required boards at temples stating that non-Hindus are not allowed beyond the Kodimaram and an undertaking of faith from non-Hindus seeking to visit the deity.
As for the 1972 decision in Kalyan Dass v. State of Tamil Nadu, which struck down Rule 4-A of the Temple Entry Authorisation Rules, the Bench endorsed the conclusion but disapproved one strand of reasoning concerning processions passing places of worship, holding that processions of any community should not be curtailed merely because they pass a mosque, church or temple.
How far the ruling goes
Being a Hindu, the petitioner was held entitled to insist that trustees of Agamic temples in Tamil Nadu do not permit non-Hindus who have not signed the undertaking to cross the flag-pole. The ruling is confined to Agamic temples. It does not extend to shrines such as those of Lord Ayyappa and Shirdi Sai Baba, which draw devotees across religions. The order does not set out a separate enforcement machinery such as enquiry committees.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling reads the right of a denomination to manage its religious affairs under Article 26 together with the statutory bar on non-Hindu entry in the HR&CE Act, while holding that agamic rules yield where they offend the Constitution, as with caste-based exclusion. It turns the earlier Kodimaram directions into a clear rule that depends on a signed undertaking in the temple’s prescribed format, and it limits that rule to Agamic temples. Reaction to the ruling is likely to differ, with some seeing protection of settled temple usage and others questioning restrictions on access to places of worship.
Case Title: Thangam Venkatesh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others [W.P.(MD) No. 30452 of 2026]
Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice Dr. P. Murugan, Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
Date of Order: October 23, 2026
Appearances: Mr. G. Aravinthsamy for the petitioner; Additional Advocate General Mr. P.V. Balasubramanian, assisted by Government Pleader Mr. M.P. Senthil, for the respondents.