No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: Supreme Court

Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises

19 September 2024 7:57 PM

By: sayum


Kerala High Court, comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, delivered an important ruling in the case of W.P.(C) No. 31313 of 2024. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus against the entry of non-Hindus into the Guruvayur Temple premises, alleging violations of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965. The court issued directives to the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee to regulate activities such as videography on temple premises.

The petitioners, devotees of Lord Guruvayurappan, filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They alleged that the 4th respondent, a non-Hindu, violated the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, by entering the temple premises and engaging in non-religious activities. Incidents like picking quarrels with devotees, celebrating a birthday by cutting a cake, and videographing in the Nadapanthal were cited as evidence.

The core legal issue centered around the violation of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, and the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978. The court examined the duties of the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee under Section 10 of the 1978 Act, which mandates the committee to ensure proper performance of temple rites and facilitate worship for devotees. The court also scrutinized the provision under Section 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, regarding entry restrictions for non-Hindus.

The court directed the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee to take necessary steps to restrict videography on the temple premises, allowing it only in connection with marriage functions and other religious ceremonies. The ruling emphasized that activities such as following celebrities or vloggers for videography are not permitted. The court underscored that the temple, being a Special Security Zone under the Kerala Police Act, 2011, necessitates strict control over such activities. The court further instructed the committee to ensure that no disturbances occur in the temple's Nadapanthal area, particularly those affecting children, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities.

The court highlighted that the Managing Committee, as a trustee of the temple, is legally bound to adhere to the provisions of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978, and ensure that the temple's customs and traditions are maintained. The ruling reinforced that the right to worship is a civil right to be exercised in an accustomed manner, subject to temple practices and traditions.

The Kerala High Court's ruling reinforces the Guruvayur Temple's customs and traditions, restricting non-religious activities within its premises. The decision mandates the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee to uphold its responsibilities as a trustee and ensure that devotees can worship without disturbances.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2024

P.P. Venugopal and Others VS State of Kerala and Others       

Latest Legal News