Manufacturing Unit Must Be in Uttar Pradesh to Bid for Child Nutrition Tender — Delhi High Court Upholds NAFED's Geographical Eligibility Condition for Rs. 2,768 Crore ICDS Supply Contract 800-Strong Mob Unleashed Against ED Officials During PDS Scam Search — Calcutta High Court Refuses Bail, Cites Witness Intimidation Threat Section 29A Cannot Reach Into a Special Statutory Code: Bombay High Court Rules Time Limit Provisions of Arbitration Act Inapplicable to Highway Land Acquisition Arbitrations Mala Fides Are ‘Easily Alleged but Hardly Proved’: Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses to Quash Income Tax Summons” Child Witness Testimony Can Sustain Conviction Without Corroboration If Reliable: Allahabad High Court FD Deposited With Bank Does Not Make Corporate a 'Commercial Purpose' User — But Fraud Allegations Can't Be Tried in Consumer Forum: Supreme Court Movie Flopped, But That's Not Cheating — Supreme Court Quashes Section 420 IPC Against Film Producer Who Borrowed Investment Money on Profit-Sharing Promise No Rape Where Consent Is Conscious and Marriage Impossible: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Man Accused of False Promise Charge Sheet Served On Last Day of Service, Punishment After Retirement: Supreme Court Upholds Pay Reduction of Bank Officer Post-Superannuation IAS Officer Convicted for Contempt Gets Fine Waived on Apology, But Gets Stricture: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashing Cannot Become a Mini-Trial: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Halt Rape Case Linked to ‘Exorcism’ and Blackmail NDPS | Prosecution Cannot Pin Cannabis Cultivation on One Co-Owner Without Proof: Bombay HC Acquits Seventeen Years of Waiting is Itself Punishment: Calcutta High Court Balances Conviction with Constitutional Compassion Bigger Truck, Damaged Motorcycle — But Insurance Company Cannot Apportion Negligence Without Examining the Driver: Gujarat High Court Tenant Cannot Bequeath Tenancy Rights by Will Under HP Tenancy Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court A Registered Sale Deed And Mutation Cannot Override Fundamental Principle That Vendor Cannot Convey Better Title Than He Possesses: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Recovery of the Dead Body Is Not an Absolute Requirement for Conviction: Delhi High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Supplemental Agreement Signed Under Threat Of Contract Termination Cannot Negate Contractor's Claim For Extra Expenditure: Kerala High Court No Bail Without Hearing the Victim: Kerala High Court Declares Orders Passed in Violation of SC/ST Act ‘Non-Est’ False Promise, Pregnancy, and Denial of Paternity: Telangana High Court Grants Bail Amid Pending DNA Evidence

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