Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar dismissed a writ petition seeking directions against temple authorities for allowing two Christian priests, dressed in clerical robes, to enter Adoor Sree Parthasarathy Temple during a Sreekrishna Jayanthi-related programme. The petitioner, a devotee, asked that the Travancore Devaswom Board initiate action under the 1965 entry law and rules for permitting non-Hindus inside the temple precincts. The Court found that the priests’ entry was as invited guests and was permitted by the temple Thanthri and therefore did not warrant the reliefs sought. While declining to grant directions, it noted that the State Government may examine whether Rule 3(a) requires reconsideration.

The petitioner alleged that on 07.09.2023, two Christian priests were invited to attend a Sreekrishna Jayanthi celebration and were subsequently taken inside the temple premises, including the nalambalam, while wearing priestly robes. It was contended that devotees objected to their entry and that such permission violated the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 and the Rules framed thereunder.

Also Read: Photocopied Power Of Attorney No Evidence Unless Section 65 Conditions For Secondary Evidence Met: Supreme Court

The petitioner sought action against members of the Temple Advisory Committee and the Devaswom authorities, a declaration that the entry was unlawful, and directions restraining non-Hindus from entering the temple. A news report dated 08.09.2023 and a lawyer notice dated 29.09.2023 were produced.

The Travancore Devaswom Board admitted that one priest was invited to inaugurate a procession and stated that permission for temple entry was obtained from the Thanthri. It was asserted that the priests entered as guests and that rituals were not affected. The Temple Advisory Committee contended that permission was granted after consultation with the Thanthri and denied any statutory violation.

The Court recorded that “On a conjoint reading of the Sections and the Rules, it is clear that the Rules are made for the maintenance of order and decorum and for ensuring due performance of rites and ceremonies in a Temple.” It stated that “In the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, there is no provision prohibiting the entry of non-Hindus to a place of religious worship.” It recorded that “However, when the Rule was made, sub-clause (a) of Rule 3 prohibited the entry of non-Hindus into a place of religious worship.” It further stated that “Additionally, Clauses (b) to (g) have also restricted the entry of persons on certain contingencies.”

On the consequence of breach under the Rules, the Court recorded that “In other words, the maximum consequence that would ensue if any of the Rules are violated is to remove the person who infringed the rules.” It also stated that “Many of the Rules under the 1965 Rules are impracticable and difficult to enforce or execute.”

Turning to the incident, the Court stated that “Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is evident that two Christian priests entered the temple premises and offered prayers not as members of the general public, but strictly in their capacity as invitees and guests.” It recorded that “In other words, their entry into the temple was a permissive entry, expressly authorised by the Thanthri of the temple.”

It stated that “It is well settled that the Thanthri occupies a pivotal and sacrosanct position in the temple hierarchy and is traditionally regarded as the spiritual custodian and ritual authority — often described as the father of the deity.” The Court recorded that “An entry permitted by the Thanthri, in the capacity of an Athithi (guest) or a special invitee, is fundamentally distinct from an entry claimed as a matter of right.” It concluded on this aspect that “Such a permissive and ceremonial entry, in our considered view, cannot be construed as a violation of the provisions of the Act, the Rules framed thereunder, or the established rites, usages and customs governing the temple.”

The Court recorded its broader approach to interpretation in this context: “The very object and purpose of law is to secure social harmony and promote the welfare of citizens.” It stated that “Law is not static; it is dynamic and evolves with the changing needs and realities of society.” It recorded that “As society advances and becomes more inclusive, statutory provisions and subordinate legislation must be interpreted in a manner that advances constitutional values and social cohesion.”

The Court stated that “Statutes, rules and regulations ought not to be permitted to become instruments for fomenting discord or disharmony between different religions, castes, sub-castes or communities.” It added that “On the contrary, the legal framework must function as a unifying force that fosters mutual respect and coexistence.”

On the Rule position, the Court recorded that “However, we have already noticed an apparent inconsistency between the provisions of the parent Act and Rule 3(a) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.” It stated that “It is therefore for the Government to examine whether Rule 3(a) requires reconsideration, amendment or modification so as to bring it in consonance with the legislative intent and constitutional principles.”

It recorded that “Rule 13 of the Rules explicitly provides that questions relating to the interpretation of the Rules shall be referred to the Government and that the decision of the Government thereon shall be final.” It further stated that “In view of the same, it is for the Government to consider whether Rule 3(a) should be retained in its present form or suitably amended, after due consultation with the Devaswom Board, Thanthris, religious scholars and other relevant stakeholders.”

Also Read: Universities Must Regulate Student Political Activity To Prevent Campus Violence: Kerala HC

The Court recorded: “In the light of the foregoing discussion and analysis, we are of the considered view that the reliefs sought in the Writ Petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. It is for the Government to consider whether Rule 3(a) should be retained in its present form or suitably amended, after due consultation with the Devaswom Board, Thanthris, religious scholars and other relevant stakeholders.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners:  Sri. R. Krishna Raj, Smt. E.S. Soni

For the Respondents:  Shri. G. Biju, Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board; Sri. Renjith R.; Smt. Anju Mohan

Case Title: Sanil Narayanan Nampoothiri v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:7100
Case Number: WP(C) No. 43218 of 2023
Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar