Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C. Easwaramoorthy – Appellant
Versus
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chief Conservator of forest Office, Guindy, Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim regarding temple access. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for extended temple visiting hours. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 3. court's rationale for modifying temple access timings. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's decision and warnings against violations. (Para 9 , 12) |
| 5. final disposal of the writ petition. (Para 13) |
ORDER :
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
I heard Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.M.Marudhachalam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.T.Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner claims to be a devotee of the Arulmigu Vellingiri Swayambhu Eeswaran. During the Tamil month of ‘Thai’, devotees of the said deity climb the hills to perform religious rituals at the Eeswaran Temple. It is not in dispute that the temple is situated in Bolampatti Block-II reserved forest area. This area had been declared as reserved forest at least a century and half ago.
3. The petitioner approached the 3rd respondent seeking permission to perform religious rites in the aforesaid temple. The 3rd respondent considered the request and passed an order, permitting the devotees to have access to the temple f
The court reaffirmed that reasonable access to sacred sites in reserved forests can be allowed, balancing safety concerns with religious practices.
Customary rights to access religious sites must be substantiated and adjudicated by relevant authorities, as per Section 63(e) of the Act, rather than settled in a writ petition.
Court cannot decide customs under Article 226; it must direct authorities to assess existence of claimed customary rights according to law.
Time restriction is highly essential for trekking in order to ensure the safety of pilgrims.
Court permits limited extension for temple festival fireworks till midnight with strict conditions on decency and public order.
Temple boards may regulate entry to sacred areas like Sopanam for safety and crowd management, even for special pooja ticket holders; not an essential religious practice.
Court declines interference with conditional festival permission protecting drinking water source over traditional holy dips.
The fundamental rights to practice religion, the exemption granted to religious assemblies, and the need for regulatory measures to ensure public safety during religious festivals were central to the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
