The Madras High Court, in Rangarajan Narasimhan v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, refused to issue general directions to all temples to put up sign boards prescribing a dress code, reasoning that it was not for the courts to venture into uncharted waters and impose its opinions on society.
Temples are also free to put up prominent sign boards and implement regulatory measures, according to a bench led by Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy.
The Bench emphasised the importance of devotees maintaining the sanctity of temples and following the customs of the temple they were visiting.
“It is the devotees’ responsibility to recognise that they are entering a place of worship and to follow the customs in effect at that temple, if any.”
The petitioner, a temple activist, was seeking a directive to the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department to erect necessary visible sign boards mandating a dress code, which included a distinct sanathana dharma mark on the forehead of male and female devotees, dhothi/pyjama-kurta for men, saree/half-saree/salwar kameez for women, and fully-
He said that under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959, only Hindus were allowed to enter temples, and that in the lack of a clothing requirement, individuals of other faiths were also allowed to access temples. In the absence of a dress code, people were entering temples in a variety of outfits, according to the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that “the prescribing of a clothing code is important to safeguard the holiness of the temple.”
The plea was contested by Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram, who said that the management of a temple was given the authority to impose regulations on the dress code.
There was no need to accept the prayer because, according to the Rules under the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, a mechanism was established to maintain order and decorum.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decision in Mrinalini Padhi v Union of India was cited, in which the court stated that the temple management could impose regulations on the dress code to be obeyed if it was usual.
In this instance, the High Court stated, “Thus, it is up to the particular temple to regulate the dress code.”
As a result, the High Court was unable to issue a blanket order requiring all temples to post sign boards stating dress codes.
“The petitioner’s request for a broad direction of the sort sought in person cannot be granted. If the temple does not have a clothing code for devotees, such devotees should be allowed to enter the temple under the provisions of the 1947 Act,” the Court observed.
Devotees, on the other hand, were expected to attend temples dressed properly in order to maintain the decorum.
The petitioner was represented by Special Government Pleader NRR Arun Natarajan and State Government Pleader P Muthu Kumar, while the AG was aided by Special Government Pleader NRR Arun Natarajan and State Government Pleader P Muthu Kumar.
