Kerala HC dismisses plea against entry of Christians priests in Hindu temple, says rules shouldn’t be used to ‘foment disharmony’

Dismissing the petition on January 30, the Division Bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan and K V Jayakumar said there is 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. “It is 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. The court said it is up to 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, tantris, religious scholars and other relevant stakeholders,” it observed.

The court further observed, “Law is not static; it is dynamic and evolves with the changing needs and realities of society. 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. 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.”

The High Court referred to several verdicts of the Supreme Court, which had declared that a subordinate legislation cannot go beyond the scope of the parent Act. “The law is well settled on this point that if there is any inconsistency between the parent Act and the Rules made thereunder, the former shall prevail,” the court observed.

The Devaswom Board said in its affidavit that the Christian priests were invited by the temple as guests and that the tantri, or the chief priest of the temple, had allowed their entry, which hence cannot be stated as unlawful.

The court recalled that the objective of the enactment of the repealed Travancore-Cochin Temple Entry (Removal of Disabilities) Act was to permit the entry of all sects and classes of Hindus into the temple and to avoid any discrimination among them.

The Amicus Curiae appointed by the court also pointed out that restrictions under the rules, preventing the entry of non-Hindus, could be treated as a “religious practice”, but it is not an “essential religious practice”. The core of the Hindu religion would not change by permitting or preventing the entry of a non-Hindu worshiper to a Hindu religious institution.