Kerala High Court calls for review of rule imposing blanket ban on non-Hindus in temples

The Kerala High Court recently observed that the rule prohibiting non-Hindus from entering Hindu temples may require reconsideration in tune with the changing times and constitutional principles [Sanil Narayanan Nampoothiri v State of Kerala & ors]

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice KV Jayakumar cautioned that laws governing religious spaces should not become sources of social discord or disharmony.

"Statutes, rules and regulations ought not to be permitted to become instruments for fomenting discord or disharmony between different religions, castes, sub-castes or communities," the Court said.

The Court was dealing with a petition challenging the entry of two Christian priests into the Adoor Sree Parthasarathi Temple during Sreekrishna Jayanthi celebrations.

The Court held that their entry as invited guests, with the Thanthri's permission, did not violate the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 or the Rules framed under it.

"An entry permitted by the Thanthri, in the capacity of an Athithi (guest) or a special invitee, is fundamentally distinct from an entry claimed as a matter of right. Such a permissive and ceremonial entry, in our considered view, cannot be construed as a violation of the provisions of the Act, the Rules framed thereunder, or the established rites, usages and customs governing the temple," the Court said.

It also found that the Rule 3(a) of the 1965 Rules, which imposes a blanket ban on the entry of non-Hindus into temples, appeared to be inconsistent with the parent statute and left it open for the government to reconsider it.

"In view of the same, it is for the Government to consider whether Rule 3(a) should be retained in its present form or suitably amended, after due consultation with the Devaswom Board, Thanthris, religious scholars and other relevant stakeholders," the Court said.

On September 7, 2023, two Christian priests including Dr Zacharias Mar Aprem attended a public function inside the Sree Parthasarathi temple's compound as part of celebrations. After the event, they were taken near the Sreekovil (inner sanctum sanctorum) and presented with gifts.

A devotee later approached the High Court contending that the Christian priests, especially in their priestly robes, should not have been permitted to enter the temple. It was argued that their entry was in complete violations of the 1965 Act and Rules.

The plea sought disciplinary action against temple authorities for permitting such entry, and the termination of the Temple Advisory Committee. It even sought directions to conduct 'curative rituals' in the premises to restore and maintain the sanctity of the temple.

The Court, however, observed that the Christian priests entered the temple, not as ordinary members of the public, but strictly as invited guests with the permission of the Thanthri, who holds a central and authoritative position in the temple's spiritual and ritualistic administration.

The Court made a clear distinction between entry as a matter of right and entry by permission and held that such permissive entries could not be treated as a violative of the statutory provisions or temple customs.

It added that the Act was enacted to ensure entry of all sections and classes of Hindus into temples but it does not contain any explicit prohibition on non-Hindus entering temples.

However, the embargo on non-Hindus appeared only in Rule 3(a), which is a subordinate legislation, the Court acknowledged.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court opined that subordinate legislations cannot travel beyond the scope of the parent Act.

"In the Act, there is no provision prohibiting the entry of non-Hindus. The Apex Court in the afore-mentioned judgements categorically declared that a subordinate legislation cannot go beyond the scope of the parent Act. The law is well settled on this point that if there is any inconsistency between the parent Act and the Rules made thereunder, the former shall prevail," the Court sad.

The petitioner was represented by advocate Krishna Raj.

Travancore Devaswom Board was represented by its Standing Counsel G Biju.

Advocate Renjith R appeared for the Temple Advisory Committee.

Senior counsel Krishnanunni and advocate Jacob P Alex assisted the court as amicus curiae.

[Read Judgment]