Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High 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