Temple property being leased out for unrelated purposes, trading activity unmindful of heritage value: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently expressed anguish over temple property being leased out for purposes unrelated to the worship of the temple without the authorities being mindful of the heritage value of the temple (K Suresh v. Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department).The Bench of Justices TS Sivagnanam and S Ananthi added that the shops permitted to carry out trading activities on temple property have virtually become shopping centres, if not shopping malls.."The Authorities' unmindful of the heritage value of various temples had licensed and leased out the temple property as well as the pragarams and verandas of the temples to traders to carry on trading activity by selling articles which are unrelated and unconnected with the temple and the worshipping public. These shops have virtually become shopping centres, if not, shopping malls," the order stated. .The Court added that people have not learnt their lesson despite the fire accident that broke out at Madurai's Meenakshi Amman temple, which is stated to have originated in a shop located near the temple and which destroyed about thirty other shops. .The Court noted that it is not only the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department (HR &CE Department) that is to be blamed for this sorry state of affairs.."Even today, there was a writ appeal listed before us for admission, at the instance of the licensee, stating that he is entitled to continue to run a shop within the temple, rather the shop is embedded in the temple's wall. If such is the situation, obviously, the temple will be without funds and sorry state of affairs cannot be avoided. Therefore, the HR & CE Department alone is not to be blamed, but there are several persons to be blamed for such sorry state of affairs," the Court said..The Bench made the observations in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition moved by K Suresh, who is the Vice President of the Dharma Sena. .He had moved the Court urging that the Kanniyakumari District Temple Trustee Board and the Shree Parameshwara Brahmanandha Theertha Sivangal, Madathipathi of the Munchirai Madam be engaged to conduct certain temple rituals for the Arulmighu Adhikesavan Temple, which he stated was mandated as per the Agamams (scriptures) of the temple..Though he had sent a representation for the same to the concerned authorities on March 5, 2021, the same did not yield any positive response, prompting him to move the High Court for relief..The petitioner argued that people of the locality held the deity with utmost reverence and that it was sad to see that the temple is not being maintained properly and that the rituals and poojas are not being performed at the temple as per the Agamams. .The Court noted that the HR & CE Department had a duty to maintain the temple and preserve its heritage value for posterity. The Court also agreed with the petitioner that there were several temples in Tamil Nadu where poojas are not being performed owing to lack of funds. ."In our considered view, there are several people who have contributed to this issue resulting in the temples being funds starved. The poojaris not being paid in time, rituals unable to be performed for lack of funds etc. The lessees of the temple are one of the main persons, who are to be blamed for the temples being left without sufficient funds. Several cases are filed before this Court by the lessees claiming that they are entitled to continue indefinitely in temple property paying a paltry sum as a rent or license fee", the Court observed..The Court, however, expressed its inability to allow the petitioner's prayer and opined that he should approach the appropriate forum to get his grievances addressed. ."If the petitioner has material with him as to how the Arulmighu Adhikesavan Temple has to be preserved, restored and maintained, he can share the details with the Authorities by way of detailed representation. So far as the relief sought for in the writ petition is concerned, this in our opinion is a civil right and if according to the petitioner, a particular sect of people have to perform that particular ritual as recorded in the Register of Agamams, then the petitioner's remedy lies else where and not by way of writ petition", the Court said..Having said so, the Court proceeded to dispose of the writ petition. Advocate L Victoria Gowri appeared for the petitioner, wherease the respondents were represented by stand AK Manickam,.[Read Order]