Caste-Based Temple Administration Not A Religious Practice, Cannot Be Protected Under Articles 25, 26 Of Constitution: Madras High Court

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that only if a group followed a particular philosophy or had a distinct way of carrying their faith could a group be called a denomination. The court added that the caste itself was not a religious denomination, and when no religious denomination or essential religious practice was involved, no protection could be granted under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The court also added that the exceptions under Articles 25 and 26 should always be tested within the secular fabric and should stand scrutiny of the Constitutional goal.

“When no religious denomination or essential practice of religion is involved, the protection does not extend. Thus, the claim that only particular caste owns a temple or the caste members alone can be Trustees of the temple in general does not come within the exceptions carved out and under the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 and as such, should be tested within the secular fabric and thus, cannot stand scrutiny of the Constitutional goal, and public policy, that is against perpetuation of caste,” the court said.

The court added that a public temple could be worshipped, managed and administered by all devotees. The court observed that if a group identifying itself with a particular caste had a particular way of worship, they were entitled to customary right in the manner of worship. The court added that sometimes, believers of caste discrimination tried to disguise their hatred and inequality under the guide of religious denomination creating social unrest.

“The temple is a public temple and, as such, can be worshipped, managed, and administered by all devotees. Even a social group identifying itself by the name of the caste may have a particular way of worship and will be entitled to their customary rights regarding that manner of worship. Caste, in itself, is not a 'religious denomination.' Believers in caste discrimination try to disguise their hatred and inequality under the guise of 'religious denomination,' viewing temples as fertile ground for nurturing these divisive instincts and creating social unrest,” the court noted.

The court was hearing a plea by C Ganesan to direct the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department to separate Arulmighu Ponkaliamman Temple from the group of Temples consisting of "Arulmighu Mariamman, Angalamman and Perumal Temples and Arulmighu Ponkaliamman Temple" within a time limit fixed by the Court. All the temples were combined for administrative purposes.

The petitioner argued that Arulmighu Ponkaliamman Temple was maintained and administered by members belonging to a particular caste while people from other castes were involved in the administration of the other temples. Thus, he requested the court to separate the particular temple and asked it not to be grouped with the other temple.

The court noted that the prayer in the plea primarily oozed with caste perpetuation and hatred for other human beings as if they were different creatures. The court added that even if the request might have been approved by the Assistant Commissioner, the court could not allow the same.

The court referred to one of its recent orders calling for a casteless society and another order of the Supreme Court in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v State of UP, which examined the issues of religious denomination and religious practice. Noting that a separate administration of temples based on caste could not be allowed, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. T. S. Vijaya Raghavan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S. Ravi Chandran Additional Government Pleader

Case Title: C. Ganesan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 85

Case No: W.P.No.6704 of 2025