'Faith Can't Be Fenced By Caste': Madras High Court Allows Temple Car Route Through Dalit Colony

Justice PB Balaji remarked that God never discriminates and no street was unworthy of the chariot or the god it carried.

“Faith cannot be fenced by caste or creed and divinity cannot be confined by human prejudice. God does not reside in certain streets alone. No street is unworthy of the chariot or the god it carries. God never discriminates. So discrimination cannot be wrapped in the sanctity of tradition,” the court said.

The court added that through Article 17 of the Constitution, untouchability was abolished not just in physical form but in letter and spirit also. The court added that no one could dictate who could or could not stand before the deity and worship and there was no bar for any person to enter any temple and worship.

“The Constitution of India under Article 17, abolished untouchability. Such abolition was not just in physical form but in true letter and spirit. Therefore, none can dictate terms as to who is entitled to stand before the deity and worship and who cannot. In any event, all the respondents, have in unison, stated that there is no bar for any person belonging to any community to enter the Temple and worship the deity. In the light of the above, I do not see any difficulty in recording the stand of the respondents and this would sufficiently address the grievance and apprehension of the petitioner with regard to one part of the prayer in the writ petition,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a man belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. The man had approached the court seeking directions to the Kancheepuram District Collector, Superintendent of Police, HR & CE Joint Commissioner, Tahsildar and other caste Hindus to permit him and other people belonging to his community to enter the Muthu Kolakki Amman temple and to participate in the ritual activities. He also sought directions to permit the persons from the community to participate in the car festival, by allowing the temple car to come to the Dalit colony.

The petitioner had alleged that there had been resistance from the persons belonging to the upper caste community against the participation by members of the downtrodden communities. He further argued that though the temple was being managed by the Hindu religious and Charitable Endowment Department, the discrimination continued even now, and the caste Hindus had taken law into their own hands and were not permitting members from the Scheduled Caste community to worship the deity.

The petitioner further submitted that, though representations were given to the authorities, no action had been taken, prompting him to approach the court.

The District Collector informed the court that as per a previous order, a field inspection was conducted and there was no prohibition for the petitioner or persons belonging to his community to either enter the temple, worship the deity or from participating in the festivals including the temple car festival.

The private respondents, however, objected to the plea and argued that a particular car route had been adopted and was being followed for the past several decades. It was argued that there was no necessity to change or alter the route, which would only lead to more complications. It was argued that if the request was permitted, other persons would also want the temple car to visit their streets, and there would be no end. The private respondents also denied allegations of untouchability and argued that the community was never prevented from participating in the temple functions.

The District Collector, after examining the routes, informed the court that the requested extension was feasible without affecting the historic character of the procession.

Taking note of the Collector's report, the court directed the Collector to proceed on the lines of the proposed integrated route, both during the trial run and the main run. The court directed the official respondents to ensure that the temple procession was conducted peacefully and that sufficient protection was provided both during the trial run and main run.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Kumaraswamy Mr. D. Parventhan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.M.Murali, Government Advocate, Mr.L.Baskaran, Government Advocate, Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader, Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Senior Counsel for Ms.A.Jagadeeswari, Mr.R.Thirumoorthi

Case Title: Selvaraj v. The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

Case No: WP. No.33759 of 2025