'Equality In Worship Non-Negotiable': Madras High Court Slams Police, Collector For Failing To Prevent Caste Discrimination In Temple Entry

The bench observed that the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police of Karur had not shown neutrality but had in fact displayed an utter abdication of their constitutional responsibility. The court said that instead of defending rights, the officers had defended violations and had shown that they were unfit to discharge their official duties.

“The District Collector and the Superintendent of Police of Karur District have displayed an utter abdication of constitutional responsibility. They have not preserved peace, instead they have preserved discrimination. They have not defended rights, instead they have defended violations. By their conduct, they have confessed that they are unfit to discharge the duties of their office,” the court said.

The court added that the officers could not wield the authority in the name of the Constitution, while trampling the equality which was enshrined in it. It added that the officers could not preside over a “People's Government” while denying that the people include the Scheduled Caste also.

“Officers who live off the fruits of the Constitution, but refuse to implement its commands, betray their oath. They cannot wield authority in the name of the Constitution, while trampling upon the equality it enshrines. They cannot preside over a “People's Government” while denying that people includes Scheduled Castes also,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea by Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai seeking directions to the Inspector of Police, Chinnadharapuram Police Station to provide adequate protection to the association and its trustees and to provide protection to the Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, Chinna Dharapuram, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District. Another petition by one Marimuthu sought directions to the authorities to open the temple and allow all devotees to offer worship.

The court noted that the dispute regarding the temple was two opposing claims, one claiming that Scheduled Caste devotees were denied entry to the temple and another side claiming that there was no discrimination and that they had the right to maintain the temple.

In the previous hearing, the District Collector had informed the court that the Temple had been closed for all public worship and festival-related activities since 2018, and only pooja was allowed. The Collector informed that the reason for the closure of the temple was apprehension of communal tension and risk of law and order problems.

The court had condemned this action and observed that denying temple entry to everyone was not the way to keep peace. The court had observed that if there was any real threat, the District Collector should have used the state machinery and handled the threat.

Following this, the court was informed that the temple was finally opened and members of the scheduled caste community were permitted to enter the temple and offer their prayers. However, the court also noted that even after this long-awaited justice, when the members of the scheduled caste community tried to enter the temple, certain persons attempted to obstruct their worship, leading to a commotion. The court was told that a criminal case had been registered against the persons.

Noting that their conduct was an open defiance to the constitutional court's order, the court directed that the criminal cases should be pursued with earnestness and brought to a logical conclusion at the earliest. The court added that a message should be sent that those who obstruct constitutional rights would face strict legal consequences. The court added that the law should speak firmly so that no person or group dares to deny temple entry on the grounds of caste.

Penning the order, the court also lamented that it was ironic to see that the very land where Mahatma Gandhi rejoiced in the breaking of caste barriers through the Madras Temple Entry Authorization and Indemnity Act, 1939, allowing the entry of Scheduled Caste, now presented a spectacle where the same Scheduled Caste members were being denied temple entry. The court lamented that what was achieved in 1939 through the moral conviction of reformers and leaders was achievable in 2025 only through a judicial order.

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. C. Vakeeswaran, Mr. S. Gokulraj

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 313

Case No: WP(MD)Nos.. 15950 of 2024, 17212 of 2025