'No Hierarchy Among Devotees Based On Birth': Madras High Court Allows SC Community To Participate In Temple Rituals

Justice L Victoria Gowri held that the Constitution does not recognise any hierarchy among the devotees based on birth. The court added that though courts usually exercise restraint in matters concerning religious practices, such restraint could not be used to perpetuate practices which offend the constitutional guarantees such as equality, dignity and fraternity.

“Neither of these Articles is absolute. Both are expressly made subject to public order, morality, health and the other provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution. Therefore, while Courts ordinarily exhibit judicial restraint in matters concerning religious practices, such restraint cannot extend to perpetuating practices which offend constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and fraternity. The Constitution does not recognise any hierarchy among devotees based upon birth. The Constitution recognises only one hierarchy—the supremacy of constitutional values,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Sundararaju, representing the Adi Dravidar Community in Valavampatti Village, against the order of the Executive Officer of the temple, by which his request for recognising the community's right to offer pooja on the 9^th day of the festival was rejected.

The petitioner argued that the exclusion did not have any statutory or customary backing but was solely based on caste, which was against Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 25 of the Constitution. It was argued that since it was a public temple administered by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, every Hindu had an equal right of worship.

At the same time, another petition was filed by 8 traditional Karaidars associated with the temple who performed Mandakapadi on the first 8 days of the Chithirai festival. It was submitted that every devotee was allowed to worship in the temple on all festival days, and there was never any prohibition against temple entry. It was submitted that, as per custom, the order of Mandakapadis has remained unchanged for several generations and constitutes a civil customary right recognised under law. It was argued that by allowing pooja on the 9^th day, the court would be altering a long-standing customary arrangement and interfering with recognised customary rights.

The HR & CE department submitted that the temple was following a practice whereby after the first 8 Mandakapadis, the temple administration, along with sections of villagers, collectively offered worship on the concluding day before the commencement of the chariot festival. However, the department admitted that there was no statutory material that recognised the practice as legally binding.

The court noted that once a temple is under the control of the HR & CE department, it has to be regulated by constitutional norms and statutory supervision. The court noted that though customary practices deserve to be respected, it cannot be perpetuated in a manner that legitimises discrimination prohibited by the constitution.

“Courts are not expected merely to preserve tradition. Courts are expected to preserve those traditions which are compatible with constitutional values while simultaneously removing those practices which perpetuate discrimination. Social customs cannot be permitted to fossilise constitutional freedoms. Equally, constitutional freedoms cannot be exercised in a manner that unnecessarily destroys legitimate customs. The constitutional task is therefore one of reconciliation rather than destruction,” the court said.

The court observed that the existing right of the 8 Mandakapadis would constitute a customary right. The court also noted that the petitioner was not seeking to take away the existing right of the Mandakapadis but only seeking to recognise their right.

Thus, while the court held that the customary right would remain completely undisturbed, the court allowed members of the Adi Dravidar community to perform the ninth-day Mandakapadi from 8:30 am to 1:00 pm on every Chithirai festival. After this, from 1:00 pm onwards, the court said that the HR & CE department shall perform the customary Mandakapadi together with all sections of the village community.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. P. Manokaran, Mr. K. Baalasundaram, Senior Counsel for M/s.KBS Law Office

Counsel for Respondents: Ms. M. R. Priyanka Jothi, Government Advocate (Civil), Mr. C. Susikumar, Government Advocate (Crl.), Mr. G. Mathavan (R4) Standing Counsel

Case Title: P. Sundararaju v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 314

Case No: WP Crl (MD) Nos 2151 of 2025 and 2187 of 2026