Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madras at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi held that the prolonged closure of a public temple on account of alleged caste tensions amounted to a failure of constitutional duty. The Court directed the State administration and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department to restore public access and ensure equality of worship at the Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, Chinna Dharapuram, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District. The Court further mandated the filing of detailed status reports by senior district officials and stated that no person or group could claim exclusive rights or block access based on caste.

The dispute centered around the Arulmigu Mariamman Temple located in Chinna Dharapuram, Karur District. Two writ petitions were filed, one by a community trust representing the Vanniyakulachathiriyar community and the other by an individual petitioner claiming denial of worship rights to Scheduled Caste devotees.

Also Read: Fit Case For Furlough Release As Petitioner Has Completed 20 Years Of Uninterrupted Incarceration Without Remission | Supreme Court Orders Three Month Conditional Relief

In W.P.(MD) No. 15950 of 2024, the petitioner was the Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai, represented by its President, Murugan. The trust sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Inspector of Police, Chinnadharapuram Police Station, to provide adequate protection to the trustees and to the Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, based on a representation dated 10.07.2024. The petitioner contended that no caste-based exclusion had occurred and claimed historical management of the temple by their community.

In W.P.(MD) No. 17212 of 2025, the petitioner Marimuthu sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an impugned proceeding dated 19.07.2024 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur District. He further requested a directive to open the Arulmigu Mariamman Temple for worship by all villagers, specifically Scheduled Caste devotees, with adequate police protection. The petition alleged persistent denial of access to the temple to Scheduled Caste individuals.

The District Collector of Karur, in a status report dated 07.07.2025, acknowledged that since 2018 the temple had remained closed for public worship and festival activities. Only poojas were conducted during this period. The closure was reportedly due to apprehension of communal tension and law-and-order concerns.

The Court took serious note of the conflicting claims: while the Trust denied any caste-based exclusion and asserted that Scheduled Caste groups were seeking control over temple management, the petitioner Marimuthu alleged that access to worship had been systematically denied.

The Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai submitted that it had historically maintained the temple, incurred expenses for electricity and pooja-related activities, and continued to appoint and pay staff. The Trust referred to a draft scheme dated 27.12.2023, issued by the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, which proposed appointing a non-hereditary trustee from the Trust's side, and claimed that objections had been invited under Section 64 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

Marimuthu relied on an RTI reply dated 22.09.2023 from the HR & CE Department, which confirmed that the temple was under the control of the Department.

The Collector’s report confirmed that the temple was currently managed by a Fit Person appointed by the HR & CE Department and acknowledged that the temple was a public religious institution.

The Court noted that "closure of a public temple, not for days or weeks but for years, under the guise of a law-and-order concern, is a dereliction of constitutional duty." The Court criticized the District Administration for inaction and failing to uphold the constitutional mandate of equality.

Regarding the conduct of the police, the Court stated: "They seem to think that the only way to keep peace is by denying entry to everyone. This is wrong. Stopping everyone from entering is not the way to maintain peace. It is the job of the police to make sure that rights are protected, and that anyone who breaks the law is dealt with properly."

In addressing the constitutional implications, the Court recorded: "It is shocking that even after 75 years of independence, people are still being kept out of temples because of their caste. The Constitution of India does not allow discrimination among devotees. God does not belong to any one caste. He does not discriminate. Only human beings do."

Commenting on the Trust’s claims, the Court queried: "If the Trust really believes that there is no discrimination, then why should anyone be stopped from entering the temple?" and further stated, "The easiest way to prove their claim would have been to allow joint worship under the supervision of officials."

Regarding management rights, the Court clarified: "Even if [the Trust's claims] are true, this does not give them any legal control under the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959. As per the law, only the HR & CE Department can decide who should manage a public temple, and that too only after following proper procedures."

The Court observed: "The temple is under HR & CE control and is being managed by a Fit Person. This means that, legally, the temple is still a public temple under the HR & CE Department, and the Trust has no official right to claim full control at this time."

Citing the successful handling of the Kandadevi Temple festival in Sivagangai District in June 2024, the Court remarked: "That success was not because they avoided conflict, but because they showed firm leadership and commitment to the Constitution." It concluded: "The Government must remember that peace built by denying rights is not real peace, it is surrender."

The Court directed the HR & CE Department to file a detailed report within two weeks stating: who is currently managing the temple; whether all communities are allowed to worship; whether the draft scheme under Section 64 has been finalised; and why joint worship under government supervision was not arranged so far.

The Court ordered the District Collector, Karur, to file an affidavit explaining why the temple had remained closed since 2018; why steps had not been taken to allow joint worship with police protection; and what action was now proposed to restore worship and ensure equality.

Also Read: Wipro Held Liable For Defamation In Termination Letter | Delhi High Court Awards ₹2 Lakh Damages For Reputational Harm In Private Employment

The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, was directed to file a report on the current law and order situation and whether sufficient police force could be provided to enable joint worship and peaceful festivals.

The Court made it clear: "No person or group can block access to a public temple based on caste. If anyone tries to create trouble or claim superiority based on caste, they will face strict legal consequences. The right to worship cannot be sacrificed for the sake of silence."

The parties were directed to cooperate with officials and maintain peace and harmony, and were restrained from taking the law into their own hands.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. R. Vidhya, Advocate; Mr. S. Gokulraj, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. F. Deepak, Special Government Pleader; Mr. E. Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor; Mr. S. S. Madhavan, Additional Government Pleader

Case Title: Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai v. The District Collector and Others

Case Numbers: WP(MD)Nos.15950 of 2024, 17212 of 2025

Bench: Justice B. Pugalendhi