“Temples cannot be forced to engage services of non-Hindus”

A Hindu temple cannot be compelled to engage the services of a security agency owned by non-Hindus, the Madras High Court has ruled. Ultimately, reforms in matters of religious administration, if any, have to come from within and not outside, and the court could not thrust reforms.

Justice K. Chandru made this observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by a private security agency owned by a family of Christians, challenging a tender notification issued by Subhramaniya Swamy Temple at Tiruchendur in Tuticorin district on July 29. He held that courts cannot direct a temple management to engage the agency even if it undertook to provide personnel professing Hindu faith alone.

A temple cannot be termed ‘State’ so as to compel it to engage contractors professing other faith. “Guarding a temple or a place of worship is a sensitive issue and ultimately it is for the temple to decide on such matters,” the judge said.

He also pointed out that Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act clearly stated that all servants of a temple, right from the Joint Commissioner to the last grade servants, including the security guards, must be Hindus.

He rejected the petitioner’s contention that its exclusion would amount to discrimination practised by a State Government official such as the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in the name of religion.

He also pointed out that the Joint Commissioner was only a supervisory authority in his capacity as the Executive Officer of the temple, which was actually managed by a Board of Trustees which had decided to engage a security agency owned by Hindus alone.

On the plea for introducing reforms, Mr. Justice Chandru recalled that in 1872, the people of Nadar community were prevented from entering the Tiruchendur temple by Brahmins and Vellalars. But thereafter, the Nadars made great strides in the development of their community.

“Owing to their industry and hard work, they have advanced to such an extent that today the temple which had denied them entry in the year 1872 is now controlled by the very same community. The majority of the Trust Board today comprised members of that community.

“Thus great social progress has been achieved within the Hindu religion. In view of the above, this court cannot agree with the submission made by the senior counsel for the petitioner that reform should come through court orders. “The 140-year history of the temple shows that changes have taken place, though slowly but steadily, and further changes also may come about in the future.”