1. God is equal to all; courts have held no room for discrimination in places of worship. (Para 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. Jayachandran, E. Manoharan, JJ
Madhavan Ramanuja Dasan – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department – Respondent
WP No. 9273 of 2019
Important Points
Places of worship must be free from discrimination regarding offerings and worship rituals, provided that legally secured traditional service rights are maintained.
Subject
Civil - Religious Endowments
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Discrimination in place of worship - Allegations of discrimination against Non-Brahmin devotees of Thenkalai cult regarding distribution of Prasadam, Theethams, and the right to recite Tamil Prabandams at Arulmigu Devaraja Swamigal Temple - Court held that there is no room for discrimination in a place of worship. (Paras 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Thenkalai Vaishnavite, filed a PIL alleging that non-brahmin devotees were discriminated against at the Arulmigu Devaraja Swamigal Temple, specifically being forced to use a side entrance at the Sannathi of Manavala Munigal, being denied the placing of Satari, and being prevented from reciting hymns. The respondents argued that the small size of the shrines limited access and that certain recital rights were statutorily secured for the Adhyabaga Mirasi of the Thenkalai Sect.
Findings of Court:
The court accepted the respondent's statements as an undertaking that no discrimination would occur in the distribution of Theertham, Satari, and Prasadams. Regarding the recital of hymns, the court noted that while the statutory rights of the Adhyabaga Mirasi are preserved, other devotees would not be prevented from reciting Prabandhams for their worship.
Issues: Whether there was caste-based discrimination against non-Brahmin devotees in the distribution of offerings and the performance of rituals at the Arulmigu Devaraja Swamigal Temple.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the principle that places of worship must be inclusive and free from discrimination, provided that traditional, statutorily secured rights (such as those of the Adhyabaga Mirasi) are respected.
Result: Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Thenkalai Vaishnavite, filed a PIL alleging that non-brahmin devotees were discriminated against at the Arulmigu Devaraja Swamigal Temple, specifically being forced to use a side entrance at the Sannathi of Manavala Munigal, being denied the placing of Satari, and being prevented from reciting hymns. The respondents argued that the small size of the shrines limited access and that certain recital rights were statutorily secured for the Adhyabaga Mirasi of the Thenkalai Sect.
Findings of Court:
The court accepted the respondent's statements as an undertaking that no discrimination would occur in the distribution of Theertham, Satari, and Prasadams. Regarding the recital of hymns, the court noted that while the statutory rights of the Adhyabaga Mirasi are preserved, other devotees would not be prevented from reciting Prabandhams for their worship.
Issues: Whether there was caste-based discrimination against non-Brahmin devotees in the distribution of offerings and the performance of rituals at the Arulmigu Devaraja Swamigal Temple.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the principle that places of worship must be inclusive and free from discrimination, provided that traditional, statutorily secured rights (such as those of the Adhyabaga Mirasi) are respected.
Result: Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. Shanmugasundaram, Mr. S. Senthilnathan
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Bharanidharan, Mrs. Hema Sampath, Ms. R. Meenal
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. Shanmugasundaram, Mr. S. Senthilnathan
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Bharanidharan, Mrs. Hema Sampath, Ms. R. Meenal
Table of Contents
2. Temples must not discriminate in religious practices; secured traditional rights of specific sects are protected. (Para 9 )
3. Writ petition disposed of; temple's undertaking against discrimination in prasadam distribution recorded. (Para 9 )
4. Can a temple practice caste-based discrimination in distributing prasadam, theertham, and satari?
No, courts have held that there is no room for discrimination in a place of worship. (Para 9 )
5. Can a court accept a temple's undertaking to resolve allegations of discrimination?
A temple administration's undertaking that it will not discriminate can resolve a grievance regarding distribution of religious items. (Para 9 )
(Order of the Court was made by E.Manoharan J.)
The above-mentioned Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the
Petitioner, who is a resident of Kancheepuram and the Secretary of Thirukatchi Nambi Thirumaladiar Seva Sangam bearing Registration No.237 of 2003. The Petitioner submits that he is a devotee of Lord Devarajaswamy at Kancheepuram and he is a Thenkalai Vaishnavite and that Thenkalai Vaishnavam is accepted in the above Devasthanam. Petitioner states that the
__________ Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2026 12:52:58 pm )
WP No. 9273 of 2019
Devasthanam has got many shrines and the devotees from all communities worship the deities and particularly the Sannathi of Manavala Munigal is a very
important Sannathi for Thenkalai Vaishnavites.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that worshipers from all
communities worship all the deities without any major discrimination except the Sannathi of Manavala Munigal. The petitioner counsel submits that for the Sannathi of Manavala Munigal, there are two entrances, one is the main entrance and the other one is the side entrance and that the Devasthanam is not permitting non-brahmin devotees to enter through the main entrance and that they are asked to use the side entrance only and that the brahmins are permitted to use the main entrance and therefore, there is clear discrimination. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that non-brahmins are not given permission
to recite the hymns in all the shrines of Devarajaswamy Temple.
3. He also states that non-brahmins are made to stand outside the Sananthi
where they will get Prasadham and Theertham but no Satari will be placed on them. He states that the discrimination is practiced at the time of birthday function of Manavala Munigal for 10 days. He states that the petitioner had made representations to the authorities in this regard and it is also brought to the attention of this Court through the letter from the 3rd respondent dated
__________ Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2026 12:52:58 pm )
WP No. 9273 of 2019
14.10.2003 to the temple wherein the 3rd respondent has stated that there should not be any discrimination and that if there is any discrimination in the name of temple custom, strict action will be taken. Another letter dated 23.12.2003 from the 3rd respondent also states that there should be no discrimination between the brahmins and non-brahmins in the method of distribution and place of distribution of Theertham, Satari and Prasadham. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the attention of the Court, an order dated 31.10.2008 in W.P. No. 25845 of 2008 passed by the First Bench of of this Court wherein the Court has affirmed the directions mentioned in the letters stated supra and has directed the 1st respondent Devasthanam therein to implement the directions in letter and spirit. In light of the above, the petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation to prohibit discrimination against Non
Brahmins in the Arulmigu Devaraja Swamigal Temple in Kanchipuram.
4. In this regard, the Executive Trustee, on behalf of the 4th respondent
has filed a counter affidavit. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent, based on the counter affidavit, has stated that it is practically impossible to allow all public inside the Azhwar Acharyas sub shrines which are small structures and that the Adhyapaga Goshti and Adhyapak mirasi Gosti members themselves are not able to be fully accommodated inside the sub shrines and because of this, members of the public are not able to be
__________ Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2026 12:52:58 pm )
WP No. 9273 of 2019
accommodated inside and therefore have to be accommodated only outside the
sub shrines during the service periods.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the temple
administration will not discriminate any portion of the public in the matte
