“Groups Fighting Over Non-Existing Concept Of Caste”: Madras High Court Asks HR&CE Joint Commissioner To Decide Temple Festival Dispute

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the issues with respect to who was entitled to conduct the festival and what was the nature of the festival were matters which fell under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

The court also noted that two groups were fighting with respect to the conduct of the temple festival, over a non-existent concept of caste. The court thus directed the Joint Commissioner to consider the issue on merits.

“Since two groups are fighting on the basis of a non-existing concept called 'caste', the Joint Commissioner can decide the issue on the basis of the merits, without reference to caste. The petitioner or the private respondent herein, whoever claims any right to perform whatever the festival events, can make an application before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner of HR&CE Department. The issues with reference to who is entitled to manage the temple, what ceremonies are to be conducted, and whether any traditional rights with reference thereto, can all be decided by the Joint Commissioner in accordance with law. Ultimately, the festival shall be conducted depending on the final orders passed by the Joint Commissioner,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Thangamani Rajamanikkam against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (Kancheepuram Division) refusing to conduct the Sri Krishna Jayanti festival in the temple, citing law and order issues.

The petitioner argued that the festival was traditionally celebrated in the temple and a procession was also conducted. Meanwhile, some private individuals objected to the conduct of the festival on account of caste differences. After this, citing law and order issues, the RDO issued the order stopping the festival as if there was a dispute between two groups. Thus, the petitioner had approached the court seeking directions to the authorities to permit the temple festival.

The government advocate informed the court that even before, the private respondents had approached the court, in which the court had directed the Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE to inspect the temple, hear both sides, make a decision, and recognize the proper person entitled to conduct the proper festival that is prevailing. The authorities were also directed to maintain law and order.

The court was informed that the Assistant Commissioner had inspected the temple and submitted a report. However, since both sides were claiming rights, the Commissioner turned to the State authorities to maintain law and order. The State informed the court that the order was passed, considering the law-and-order situation.

The court observed that even as per the earlier order of the court, if any person was already recognised to be in the management of the temple and any ceremony had already been recognised, the same could continue.

With respect to the claim of right and nature of festival, the court said that since it came within the purview of the Act, the Joint Commissioner could decide the same, in accordance with law.

Since the court was also informed that the temple was in a dilapidated condition, the court directed an inspection to be conducted and that all necessary steps be taken to protect the temple and its structure.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. B. Arvind Srevatsa

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Senthamizh Selvan Additional Government Pleader, Mr. Durai Gunasekaran Government Advocate, Mr. Veerabathran Prasanth Government Advocate