IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: 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