No festival for 20 years: Madras High Court says right to worship fundamental, allows New Year puja at temple

“The right of worship is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India, and hence, there is no impediment for the petitioner and his village people to perform poojas in a Sri Bagavathy Amman Alaya Chithira Thiruvizha situated at K P Kulam, Renganathapuram Village, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District,” the April 9 order read.

Arguments

Government advocate M Sakthi Kumar submitted that for the past 20 years, the said festival was not conducted. He added that there are possibilities for disruption of law and order in the locality if permission is granted.

On the contrary, the counsel for the petitioner, advocate M Yesudasan, submitted that it was not actually a temple festival, but his client was only seeking permission to conduct pujas on the eve of the Tamil New Year from 7 am to 5 pm.

Tamil New Year

The Tamil New Year, also known as Puthandu, marks the beginning of the Tamil calendar and is celebrated with great joy and devotion across the state.

Also referred to as Varusha Pirappu, it is observed on the first day of the Tamil month Chithirai, and this year it was celebrated on April 14, with the Sankranti moment falling at 9.39 am.

This new year symbolises new beginnings, prosperity, and hope for the year ahead. On this day, families clean and decorate their homes, prepare traditional dishes like mango pachadi, which represents the different flavours of life, and visit temples to seek blessings.

No permission required for religious prayer

In a separate development, the Allahabad High Court has observed that no prior permission from state authorities is required to conduct religious prayer meetings within private premises.

A bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan held that religious prayer falls within the ambit of the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution. Article 25 provides for freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.

The bench was hearing a plea alleging inaction by the authorities concerned on several representations by the petitioner seeking permission to hold a religious prayer meeting within its private property.