Right given to non-Hindus for entering into temple ultra vires the policy of the Act.

A question of general importance has arisen in this writ petition. The petitioner is challenging the vires of rule 4-A of the Rules framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in exercise of their power under section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act (V of 1947) hereinafter called the Temple Entry Act. The petitioner as a Hindu claims that the Hindu temples in the State are maintained in accordance with certain norms as set out in the Agamas and in strict conformity with the ancient customs and practices. He is a permanent resident of Tulasi Babu Mutt at Rameswaram and he is a Mathadhipati, besides being a regular worshipper of Sri Ramanathaswami temple at Rameswaram. He is aggrieved by the induction of rule 4-A by the State Government which was published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 28th January, 1970. Until January, 1970 the Rules did not contemplate non-Hindus to enter or offer worship in a temple or use the waters of any sacred tank, well, spring or any sacred places including a hill or hillock, street, or pathway, which is requisite for obtaining access to the temple. This is contained in the old rule 3 (a) of the Rules framed under the Temple Entry Act. By the impugned notification a right is given to non-Hindus also, to enter into the Hindu temple precincts, which is prohibited under the ancient and accepted customs annexed to all Hindu temples. The rule violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and is said to be discriminatory as well, as the mode and manner of worship at Hindu temples are all matters of religion which are guaranteed by the provisions of the Constitution of India. The present rule enabling non-Hindus to enter Hindu temples not for the purpose of worship but for other purposes, does not further the object or the purpose of the Temple Entry Act. Several supporting affidavits are filed by devout Hindus to exemplify the importance of a temple, its Gopurams, its Mandapams etc. A reference is also made to the purificatory ceremonies undertaken by the temple authorities if any defilement is caused and if anybody dies in the vicinity of the temple. A reference is also made to several Agamas which prescribe that any transgression or pollution, even in the matter of place of worship inside the temple would result in the reconsecration of the deity. Mr. R. Raghava Bhattar of Srirangam, who is an authority on Parameswara Samhita (Pancharathra Agamam) explains what is Ardha Mahdapam, Mahamandapam and Garbagraham and says that if Mlechas (non-Hindus) enter the temple, it is derogatory to the other devotees who worship the Lord. If for some reason, they enter the temple, Maha Samprokshanam and Shanthi have to be performed. This view is also fortified by another devout Hindu well-versed in Saiva Agamas. In the counter-affidavit it is sought to be maintained that, as at present, in several temples the trustees allow non-Hindus such as foreigners to go round the Vimanam every day without any objection from anybody and that, as temples like the Rameswaram Temple and the Brahadiswarar Temple are all places of tourists’ attraction, there is nothing either in the Constitution or in the accepted practice or Agamas which can prevent the rule-making authority under the Temple Entry Act to make the challenged rule. It is also submitted that the sanctity of the temple is in no way affected by allowing non-Hindus into certain portions of the temple and that too under certain guidelines as contained in rule 4-A, which is impugned in these proceedings., The rule is said to be a laudable measure and that it would not in any way conflict or interfere with the freedom of pious and religious Hindus worshipping in the temples. To show as to what portion of the temple is meant by Garbagraham, Ardhamandapam and Mahamandapam several sketches have been filed. One of the Gurukkals of Sri Ramanathaswami temple has come forward to state that the worshippers who ever they may be, are allowed by custom a