'Rules Can't Be Used To Foment Disharmony': Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea For Action Against Temple Entry By Christian Priests
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition that sought action against Christian priests, who had entered Adoor Sree Parthasarathy Temple in priestly robes to attend a function to celebrate Sreekrishna Jayanthi.The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a plea preferred by a devotee of the temple, who prayed for a...
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition that sought action against Christian priests, who had entered Adoor Sree Parthasarathy Temple in priestly robes to attend a function to celebrate Sreekrishna Jayanthi.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a plea preferred by a devotee of the temple, who prayed for a direction to the Travancore Devaswom Board to take action as per the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act 1965 and the Rules thereunder for permitting entry of non-Hindus inside the temple.
The Court remarked that the priests' entry into the temple was a permissive entry as guests, authorized by the thantri and it was not an entry claimed as a matter of right. Therefore, it was found that the entry cannot be construed as a violation of the Act or the Rules.
The Court also recorded the Board's submission that there was no long-standing custom of removing shirts while entering the temple and the said practice was recently introduced by the Temple Advisory Committee.
Further, it was observed that the law must evolve with time and should not be used as a tool to create disharmony between different religions but function as a unifying force:
“The very object and purpose of law is to secure social harmony and promote the welfare of citizens. Law is not static; it is dynamic and evolves with the changing needs and realities of society. As society advances and becomes more inclusive, statutory provisions and subordinate legislation must be interpreted in a manner that advances constitutional values and social cohesion. 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. On the contrary, the legal framework must function as a unifying force that fosters mutual respect and coexistence.”
After looking into the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the Bench remarked that there was an apparent inconsistency between two since the Act does not contain any provision prohibiting entry of non-Hindus into temples and it is only the Rules that makes such a prohibition:
“On a conjoint reading of the Sections and the Rules, it is clear that the Rules are made for the maintenance of order and decorum and for ensuring due performance of rites and ceremonies in a Temple. In the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, there is no provision prohibiting the entry of non-Hindus to a place of religious worship. However, when the Rule was made, sub-clause (a) of Rule 3 prohibited the entry of non-Hindus into a place of religious worship. Additionally, Clauses (b) to (g) have also restricted the entry of persons on certain contingencies.”
The Court remarked that the maximum consequence when a person violates that Rules is that the Executive Authority of the Temple can remove him and if the person refuses, the Trustee of the Temple can remove him.
Further, the Court also stated that many of the rules under the 1965 Rules are impracticable and difficult to enforce and might need a relook. It noted that it is the Government that must decide on questions relating to the interpretation of the Rules, and observed that the Government is to consider whether the Rule prohibiting entry of non-Hindus into temples must be retained as it is or amended.
“It is therefore for the Government to examine whether Rule 3(a) requires reconsideration, amendment or modification so as to bring it in consonance with the legislative intent and constitutional principles. Rule 13 of the Rules explicitly provides that questions relating to the interpretation of the Rules shall be referred to the Government and that the decision of the Government thereon shall be final. 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 added.
The Court thus dismissed the writ petition.
Case No: WP(C) No. 43218 of 2023
Case Title: Sanil Narayanan Nampoothiri v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
Counsel for the petitioner: R. Krishna Raj, E.S. Soni
Counsel for the respondents: Renjith R., Anju Mohan, G.Biju - Sc - Travancore Devaswom Board
Amici Curiae: T. Krishnanunni (Sr.), Jacob P. Alex