Relevance: GS-2 (Polity – Fundamental Rights, Article 25; Temple Governance) • Source: Madras High Court proceedings; The Hindu

Key Takeaways

  • Right to Worship is not absolute; it is subject to tradition and public order.
  • ERP doctrine prevents introduction of unverified practices.
  • Strong documentation and administrative clarity reduce ritual-conflicts in temples.

News : The Tamil Nadu Government told the Madras High Court that a stone pillar at Uchipillaiyar Temple, Thiruparankundram is not a deepathoon. No temple records, Agama texts, or historical documents substantiate the claim. Petitioners argue this violates their Right to Worship under Article 25, leading to a constitutional debate on religious freedom, essential practices, and public order.

Why This Dispute Emerged

Petitioners claimed:

  • The pillar is traditionally used to light the Mahadeepam, forming part of their religious practice.

State’s rebuttal:

  • For 150+ years, the lamp has been lit only at the mandapam.
  • Records from 1920, 1994, 1996 judgments and HR&CE archives show no reference to the pillar as a deepathoon.
  • Allowing lighting at a new spot during Karthigai Deepam may disrupt safety and crowd movement.

Right to Worship vs. Evidence & Public Order

1. Essential Religious Practice (ERP) Test

Courts protect only practices that are:

  • historically established,
  • integral to the religion,
  • doctrinally mandated.

The alleged ritual fails ERP standards.

2. Public Order under Article 25

Religious freedom is subject to public order, morality, and health.
During festivals, crowd density, fire hazards, and limited space justify restrictions.

3. Temple Autonomy

Article 25 does not allow individuals to introduce new rituals into temple administration.

Value addition – Related Supreme Court cases:

  • Dargah Committee (1961): Only essential religious practices are protected.
  • Sabarimala (2018): Claimants must prove antiquity and essentiality.
  • Ismail Faruqui (1994): Right to worship does not extend to every location.

Way Forward

  • HR&CE must maintain digitised records of temple customs, rituals, and festival practices.
  • Courts should rely on historical evidence, not sentiment-based claims.
  • Establish community consultation guidelines for festival administration.
  • Introduce a standard legal test for recognising new ritual claims to reduce litigation.
UPSC Mains Value Box

Why this issue matters:

  • Balancing religious freedom with public order is central to a secular, diverse society.
  • Clarifies the limits of Article 25 in temple governance.
  • Helps prevent ritual-based conflicts and ensures administrative stability during large festivals.

Analytical Insight:

  • India faces a recurring challenge: individual religious claims often conflict with institutional autonomy and public safety.

Reform / Way Forward:

  • Evidence-based recognition of rituals + stronger HR&CE documentation + clear judicial standards for ERP claims.

The Deepathoon dispute shows how constitutional freedoms must coexist with historical practice and public safety.

Q. “Examine how courts balance the Right to Worship with public order and temple administration. Illustrate using recent cases.”

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Recent Posts

Start Yours at Ajmal IAS – with Mentorship StrategyDisciplineClarityResults that Drives Success

Your dream deserves this moment — begin it here.