MADURAI: Observing that equality in worship is non-negotiable and the law must be firm enough that no person or group ever dares to deny temple entry on grounds of caste, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court strongly condemned Karur collector and superintendent of police for failing to take suo motu action against denial of entry of people from Scheduled Caste into the Mariamman temple in Chinna Dharapuram in the district, which led to closure of the temple for seven years.
Though the temple was reopened recently and people from the SC community were allowed entry following the high court’s direction, Justice B Pugalendhi observed that a court order was required for it was shameful.
Recalling the historic Meenakshi Sundareswarar temple entry movement organised in 1939, the judge said, “What was achieved in 1939 at Madurai through the moral conviction of reformers and the courage of leaders is, in 2025, possible only through a judicial mandate.”
If the collector and SP had discharged their legal obligations, the temple would never have been closed in 2018, he said, and called the officers ‘unfit’ to discharge the duties of their office.
The state government is expected to take immediate corrective measures, including replacement of administrators who do not uphold constitutional values in letter and spirit, he further said.
The judge also expressed dismay that, despite the court’s order, some people had tried to prevent SC people from entering the temple when it was reopened.
Noting that 17 people have been booked by Chinna Dharapuram police in this regard, the judge told the authorities to earnestly pursue the case and try to conclude it at the earliest to send a clear message to such people that equality in worship is non-negotiable and those who are against it would face strict legal consequences.
The judge made the observations while disposing of two petitions filed by Marimuthu and Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai, making two opposing claims, with the former alleging that Scheduled Caste devotees are being denied entry into the temple, while the latter claimed that there is no such discrimination and that they have the right to manage the temple.