Introduction
In a thought-provoking judgment engaging questions of religious autonomy, constitutional morality, and delegated legislation, the Kerala High Court has observed that the rule imposing a blanket prohibition on the entry of non-Hindus into Hindu temples may no longer be in tune with constitutional principles or changing social realities.
While dismissing a challenge to the entry of Christian priests into a Kerala temple, the Court cautioned that statutes, rules, and regulations governing religious spaces should not become instruments for creating discord or disharmony between communities. Importantly, the Court left it open to the State Government to reconsider Rule 3(a) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which currently bars non-Hindus from temple entry.
The ruling is significant not only for temple jurisprudence but also for its reaffirmation of limits on subordinate legislation and its nuanced understanding of religious practices in a plural society.
Background of the Case
The controversy arose from an incident on 7 September 2023 during Sreekrishna Jayanthi celebrations at the Adoor Sree Parthasarathi Temple in Kerala.
Two Christian priests, including Dr. Zacharias Mar Aprem, were invited to attend a public function held within the temple premises. After the event, they were escorted near the Sreekovil (inner sanctum) and presented with ceremonial gifts. Their presence in the temple was with the express permission of the Thanthri, who holds the highest spiritual and ritual authority in the temple.
A devotee later approached the Kerala High Court contending that:
- The entry of Christian priests, particularly in priestly robes, violated the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 and the Rules framed under it.
- Temple authorities should face disciplinary action.
- The Temple Advisory Committee should be terminated.
- “Curative rituals” should be conducted to restore the sanctity of the temple.
Key Legal Issues Before the Court
The Division Bench was called upon to consider:
- Whether the entry of non-Hindus into the temple violated the 1965 Act or Rules.
- Whether Rule 3(a) of the 1965 Rules, which imposes a blanket ban on non-Hindus, is consistent with the parent statute.
- Whether a distinction exists between entry as a matter of right and entry by invitation or permission.
Entry by Permission vs Entry as of Right
A central pillar of the Court’s reasoning was the clear distinction between permissive entry and right-based entry.
The Court noted that the Christian priests did not claim entry as members of the public or as a matter of statutory entitlement. Instead, they entered:
- As invited guests (Athithis),
- On a ceremonial occasion,
- With the express approval of the Thanthri.
The Bench observed:
“An entry permitted by the Thanthri, in the capacity of an Athithi (guest) or a special invitee, is fundamentally distinct from an entry claimed as a matter of right.”
Such entry, the Court held, cannot be construed as a violation of the Act, the Rules, or the established rites, usages, and customs of the temple.
No Express Prohibition in the Parent Act
A crucial statutory finding was that the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965:
- Was enacted primarily to secure temple entry for all sections and classes of Hindus, and
- Does not contain any express provision prohibiting non-Hindus from entering temples.
The Court clarified that the prohibition on non-Hindu entry finds place only in Rule 3(a) of the 1965 Rules — a piece of subordinate legislation.
This distinction proved decisive in the Court’s analysis.
Subordinate Legislation Cannot Go Beyond the Statute
Relying on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed that:
Subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the scope or object of the parent Act.
Where a conflict exists between the Act and the Rules framed under it, the statute must prevail.
The Court observed:
“In the Act, there is no provision prohibiting the entry of non-Hindus… the law is well settled that if there is any inconsistency between the parent Act and the Rules made thereunder, the former shall prevail.”
On this reasoning, the Court indicated that Rule 3(a)’s blanket embargo appears inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
Call for Review of Rule 3(a)
While the Court did not strike down Rule 3(a), it made an important advisory observation, noting that the rule may require reconsideration in light of:
- Constitutional values,
- Social harmony,
- Changing times.
The Bench stated that it was for the State Government to decide whether Rule 3(a) should:
- Be retained in its present form, or
- Be suitably amended.
It further suggested that any such decision should follow consultation with relevant stakeholders, including:
- Devaswom Boards,
- Thanthris,
- Religious scholars,
- Other concerned parties.
Constitutional and Social Implications
1. Religious Harmony and Pluralism
The judgment underscores that legal frameworks governing religious institutions should not fuel inter-community discord, especially in a diverse and plural society.
2. Respect for Religious Autonomy
By recognising the authority of the Thanthri in permitting ceremonial entry, the Court balanced religious customs with legal scrutiny.
3. Reinforcing Limits on Delegated Powers
The ruling strengthens the doctrine that rules cannot add restrictions that the legislature itself did not enact.
4. A Nuanced Understanding of Temple Entry
The Court avoided absolutism, recognising that occasional, symbolic, or interfaith participation differs fundamentally from unrestricted public entry.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reopens debate on temple entry laws in the constitutional era.
- It reinforces the primacy of parent statutes over subordinate rules.
- It reflects judicial sensitivity to changing social contexts without eroding religious traditions.
- It may influence future reforms in temple administration across India.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s decision in Sanil Narayanan Nampoothiri v. State of Kerala represents a careful and balanced judicial approach to a sensitive issue at the crossroads of faith, law, and constitutionalism.
By upholding permissive entry while questioning the validity of a blanket exclusion imposed through subordinate legislation, the Court has signalled that religious regulations must evolve in harmony with constitutional principles and societal realities. The judgment neither dilutes temple customs nor endorses exclusionary rules blindly — instead, it invites thoughtful reconsideration grounded in law, inclusivity, and social cohesion.
Also Read
Delhi High Court Issues Landmark Injunction Against Deepfake Misuse of Actor Vivek Oberoi’s Identity
Exclusive Rights or Market Abuse? Supreme Court to Clarify CCI’s Reach in Patent Disputes
