Case Note & Summary
The writ petition arose from a challenge to an order passed by the Executive Magistrate cum Thasildhar, Thiruchengode Taluk, dated 21.01.2025, in proceedings related to the Periya Mariyamman Temple (Arulmigu Kandasamy Thirukoil, Kalipatty) in Namakkal District. The petitioner, Madeswaran, claimed that the temple belonged to three communities, which the court construed as caste groups. He sought a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the impugned order. The petitioner contended that the temple was a private temple, but the respondents, including the District Collector, the Executive Magistrate, the Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, the Executive Officer of the temple, and the Inspector of Police, maintained that the temple was a public temple worshipped by the general public. The court noted that the term ‘community’ used by the petitioner was effectively a reference to caste. It observed that earlier orders of the court had held that caste cannot be recognized by the court and that perpetuation of caste is against public policy and the constitutional scheme. The court further noted that an application under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, or a civil suit, was the proper remedy to seek a declaration that the temple is private. As no such declaration had been obtained and the application was still pending, the temple was deemed to be a public temple. The court emphasized that a temple being worshipped by the general public is deemed public, and the burden is on the claimant to prove otherwise through the legal process. The court placed strong reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of U.P., (1997) 4 SCC 606, where it was held that a ‘religious denomination’ must be a collection of individuals having a common faith, common organization, and designation by a distinctive name, and that caste is not a religion. The Supreme Court had also underlined that the Constitution seeks to integrate all sections of society and that discrimination on grounds of caste is violative of equality. The High Court reiterated that caste cannot claim ownership of a temple, and that the administration of a temple based on caste identity is not an essential religious practice protected under Articles 25 and 26. While a social group identifying by a caste name may have customary rights regarding a particular manner of worship, they cannot claim exclusive ownership or administration. The court concluded that since the temple had not been declared a private temple, the impugned order could not be interfered with. Significantly, it also pointed out that caste entities cannot be permitted to use religious institutions to foster division or social unrest. Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Executive Magistrate’s order. No costs were awarded. The court also made observations regarding the larger issue of caste-based claims over temples and the need to uphold the secular fabric of the Constitution. (Based on the judgment dated 17.02.2025, Madras High Court).
Headnote
A) Hindu Religious Institutions - Public vs Private Temple - Declaration Required - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, Section 63 - Petitioner claimed temple belonged to three communities, which the court interpreted as caste groups. The court held that until a declaration is obtained under Section 63 or a civil suit establishes the temple as private, the temple is deemed public. No exception can be made to the authority’s order in the absence of such declaration. (Paras 3-4). B) Constitutional Law - Religious Denomination - Caste Not a Religious Denomination - Constitution of India, Articles 25, 26 - The court ruled that caste is not a religious denomination and cannot claim any ownership or exclusive management rights over a public temple. The protection of Articles 25 and 26 does not extend to caste-based identity. The management and administration of a public temple cannot be based on caste as it is not an essential religious practice. (Para 4). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Maintainability - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner sought to quash the order of the Executive Magistrate. The court held that since the application for declaration as a private temple was pending and no declaration had been made, no exception could be made to the impugned order. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 21.01.2025 are liable to be quashed; whether the petitioner can claim rights over a temple on the basis of caste; whether the temple is a public or private temple.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The court upheld the impugned order of the Executive Magistrate and held that the temple is a public temple, caste cannot claim ownership or exclusive rights, and the petitioner must obtain a declaration under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959 or file a civil suit to establish that it is a private temple. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- caste cannot claim ownership of temple
- temple deemed public unless declared private under Section 63 of Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act
- caste is not a religious denomination under Articles 25 and 26
- perpetuation of caste cannot be permitted
- alternative remedy under Section 63 or civil suit available
- writ of certiorari not maintainable when declaration of private temple is pending
- administration of temple based on caste identity is not a religious practice
