Back
Directs HR&CE Joint Commissioner To Decide Festival Rights Without Caste Reference
In a significant ruling, the has directed the Joint Commissioner of the to decide the rights surrounding the conduct of the Sri Krishna Jayanti festival at the Arulmigu Sri Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal Temple in Kancheepuram. The court emphasized that the decision must be taken , observing that two groups were fighting over a “.”
The was filed by Thangamani Rajamanikkam challenging an order dated passed by the , Kancheepuram, which stopped the 35th year celebration of the festival citing issues.
Traditional Festival Meets Caste-Based Opposition
The petitioner contended that the temple in Venkatapuram village had traditionally celebrated the Sri Krishna Jayanti festival, which included a “Veedhi Ula” (procession) of the idol of Lord Krishna. However, a private respondent, Ravichandran, objected to the conduct of the festival on account of . The RDO then passed the , treating it as a dispute between “Group A” and “Group B” and citing the need to maintain .
The government, appearing through the Additional Government Pleader, informed the court that Ravichandran had earlier filed W.P.No.36349 of 2026. In that matter, the High Court had directed the to inspect the temple, hear both sides, and recognize the proper person entitled to conduct the festival, while the police were tasked with maintaining . However, after inspection, the Assistant Commissioner submitted a report stating that both sides were claiming rights and that he was unable to decide the issue, effectively turning back to the law enforcement agencies. Consequently, the RDO passed the order under the to maintain .
Court’s Legal Analysis: Matter Falls Under HR&CE Act
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, presiding over the matter, noted that the core issues—who is entitled to manage the temple and what ceremonies are to be conducted—fall squarely under . The court observed that the Assistant Commissioner had failed to break the deadlock, and the RDO’s order could not substitute for a decision on rights.
The court also took a strong stance on the caste angle. It observed that the two groups were fighting over a “non-existing concept called ‘caste’,” and directed that the Joint Commissioner must decide the issue strictly on merits, without any reference to caste.
Key Observations
The judgment made several crucial observations:
“Since two groups are fighting on the basis of a non-existing concept called 'caste', the Joint Commissioner can decide the issue on the basis of the merits, .”
“The issues with reference to who is entitled to manage the temple, what ceremonies are to be conducted, and whether any with reference thereto, can all be decided by the Joint Commissioner .”
“Ultimately, the festival shall be conducted depending on the final orders passed by the Joint Commissioner.”
Directions Issued by the Court
The court disposed of the with the following directions:
- Any person claiming a right to perform the festival events may make an application before the jurisdictional .
- The Joint Commissioner shall decide all issues—who is entitled to manage the temple, what ceremonies are to be conducted, and whether exist—, without any caste considerations.
- The decision shall be rendered as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of the application.
- The festival shall be conducted only based on the final orders of the Joint Commissioner.
Additionally, noting that the temple is in a dilapidated condition, the court directed the authorities to inspect the temple and take all necessary steps to protect its structure.
Implications
The ruling reinforces the principle that caste-based objections have no place in the management of religious institutions under the HR&CE Act. By directing the Joint Commissioner to decide the issue , the High Court has sought to de-escalate the dispute and place it on a legal footing, ensuring that traditional religious practices are not hijacked by divisive elements.
