Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Judicature at Madras Single Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed a writ petition seeking the appointment of temple trustees exclusively from a particular caste. The Court held that such a demand was unconstitutional and contrary to public policy. It directed that no relief could be granted on the basis of caste identity and ruled that caste cannot be the determining factor in matters of temple administration. The Court concluded that the petition could not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed it without costs.

The petitioner, claiming to be the Secretary of a caste-based organization, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus. The relief sought was to quash a notification issued by the third respondent—the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department—dated 03.04.2025 (Na.Ka.No.977/2025/Aa3). This notification pertained to the appointment of non-hereditary trustees for the Arulmigu Karneeswarar Temple in Saidapet, Chennai.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Directions For Regularisation Of Court Managers | Directs All High Courts To Frame Rules On Recruitment And Service Conditions Within Three Months

The petitioner also prayed for a direction to issue a fresh election notification for selecting trustees through a voting process limited exclusively to members of the Sengunthar community who are permanent residents of Saidapet, within the Corporation limits of Chennai. The petitioner claimed that such a provision existed in a scheme decree dated 23.04.1924 passed in O.S. No.43 of 1919.

The petition was presented on the premise that the historical scheme decree conferred exclusive trusteeship rights upon a specific caste, namely the Sengunthar community. The petitioner submitted that the temple was originally administered under a scheme which mandated that only members of the said community could serve as trustees and that such appointments were to be made by election rather than nomination by the State.

The petitioner’s counsel further argued that the impugned notification deviated from the earlier procedure by inviting applications from the general public, thereby diluting the caste-specific criteria that had previously governed the administration of the temple.

The petitioner contended that the earlier notification issued in 2022 had explicitly invited applications only from the members of the Sengunthar community. In contrast, the present notification opened the process to the general public, which, according to the petitioner, amounted to an infringement of the community’s established rights under the original scheme.

Respondents, represented by the State Government Advocate, opposed the petition, contending that the appointment of trustees must be made in accordance with constitutional principles and existing statutes, particularly the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The respondents submitted that restricting temple trusteeship to members of a single caste was contrary to the broader legal and constitutional framework which does not recognize caste-based monopolies in public religious institutions.

The notification in question did not violate any statutory mandate and was issued in accordance with the lawful procedure laid down by the Department. The respondents also stated that temple administration is a secular function, and no community, irrespective of historical claims, can assert exclusive rights over a public religious institution on the basis of caste.

In assessing the legal validity of the petitioner’s demand, the Court made a clear distinction between social identities and religious denominations. It stated that caste, by its nature, is a social categorization and not a religious identity entitled to constitutional protection in temple administration matters.

The Court began its reasoning by referring to an earlier judgment rendered in W.P. No. 3838 of 2025 and stated: “Caste is not a religious denomination and no caste can claim the exclusive right to administer a temple. Any such scheme or decree framed with reference to caste is unconstitutional.”

The Court recorded that perpetuating caste through legal mechanisms would amount to undermining the very foundational ethos of equality enshrined in the Constitution:
“Caste is a social evil. Casteless society is our constitutional goal. Anything towards perpetuation of caste can never be considered by any Court of law.”

It further stated that caste classification undermines the principle that all humans are born equal:
“Firstly, it is not decided by what one learns or does in life. It is by birth. Thus, it hits at the very basic ethos of the society that all men are born equal.”

The Court cited Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1 and extracted multiple paragraphs from the judgment to refer to the constitutional objective of creating a casteless and classless society. It stated: “The ultimate object is to see that no person gets discriminated against because of his caste.”

It added: “When the object is elimination of castes and not perpetuation to achieve the goal of casteless society and a society free from discrimination of caste, judicial review within the permissible limits is not ruled out.”

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy invoked the remarks of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar made on November 25, 1949, during the concluding session of the Constituent Assembly: “In India there are castes. The castes are anti-national… They bring about separation in social life. They generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste.”

He observed that any relief that would lead to preservation of caste structures would be unconstitutional and contrary to public interest: “Thus, any prayer made which is in the nature of or which has the effect of perpetuation of caste will not only be unconstitutional but would be opposed to public policy.”

The Court reflected on the deeper constitutional values and stated that caste-based claims could not be legitimized through judicial orders: “It would be violence to the Constitution to entertain prayers on caste basis and exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Also Read: Vandalism And Massacre Are Premeditated And Appear To Be Organized Crime | Calcutta High Court Orders SIT To Apply BNS Provisions And Ensure Individualized Rehabilitation For Riot Victims

Finally, citing Swami Vivekananda, the Court concluded: “If religion and worship are for the benefit of the soul, he said, ‘The soul has neither sex nor caste nor imperfection’.”

The Court dismissed the writ petition in its entirety and recorded that the grievance of the petitioner could not be entertained and could not be countenanced by the Court.

It ordered that the writ petition stood dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The Court directed that there would be no order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. L. Dhamodharan, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. K. Karthikeyan, Government Advocate

Case Title: K.V. Venugopal v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case Number: W.P. No.15257 of 2025

Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

[Read/Download order]