No caste can claim ownership of a temple: Madras High Court

No caste can claim ownership of a temple and temple administration based on caste identity is not a protected religious practice under the Constitution of India, observed the Madras High Court recently [C Ganesan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department]..Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy opined that while social groups identifying themselves in the name of caste may be entitled to carry on customary worshipping practices, a caste by itself is not a protected ‘religious denomination.'"Believers in caste discrimination try to disguise their hatred and inequality under the guise of ‘religious denomination,’ viewing temples as fertile ground for nurturing these divisive instincts and creating social unrest. Many public temples are being labeled as belonging to a particular ‘caste.’ Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India protect only essential religious practices and the rights of religious denominations. No caste can claim ownership of a temple. The administration of the temple based on caste identity is not a religious practice. This matter is no longer res integra," the Court added..Administration of temple based on caste identity is not a religious practice.Madras High Court.The Court made the observation while dismissing a plea to direct the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department (HR&CE Department) to approve a recommendation to separate the administration of the Arulmighu Ponkaliamman Temple from a group of temples - the other temples being the Arulmighu Mariamman, Angalamman, and Perumal Temples.The petitioner argued that the other three temples were managed by individuals from multiple castes, while the Ponkaliamman Temple had been historically maintained by members of his caste alone.The Court, however, came down heavily on the petitioner’s stance, reiterating that such claims perpetuate caste divisions and run contrary to the constitutional goal of a casteless society.The Court found that the petitioner's request oozed "with caste perpetuation and hatred for other fellow human beings as if they are different creatures.""The temple is a public temple and, as such, can be worshipped, managed, and administered by all devotees," the Court further held. .Justice Chakravarthy also referred to previous judgments that emphasized that caste is a social evil and that anything towards the perpetuation of caste can never be accepted by any court of law.The Court referred to the judgment in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of UP as well to reiterate that a right of temple administration cannot be claimed on grounds of caste.It emphasized that only essential religious practices and religious denominations, which follow a distinct philosophy, are entitled to protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India."Thus, the claim that only particular caste owns a temple or the caste members alone can be Trustees of the temple in general does not come within the exceptions carved out and under the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 and as such, should be tested within the secular fabric and thus, cannot stand scrutiny of the Constitutional goal, and public policy, that is against perpetuation of caste," the Court noted, before dismissing the plea. .Advocates TS Vijaya Raghavan, Rajalakshmi EN, Raji B, and Govindasamy D appeared for the petitioner. Additional Government Pleader Ravi Chandran appeared for the HR&CE Department. .[Read Judgement]