By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
Horst Kochler, a German politician, rightly said: “Responsibility and respect of others and their religious beliefs are also part of freedom.” This was evident recently when the Kerala High Court banned videography by vloggers, who follow celebrities, in the Nadapandal (temple foyer) of Guruvayur Sreekrishna Temple. The bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajithkumar, however, permitted videography of marriage functions and religious ceremonies in the Nadapandal.
The petition wherein these directives were passed was filed by two devotees seeking instructions to the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee to take action against Jasna Salim, a Kozhikode native, for violating provisions of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, and the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.
Salim, as per the contention of the petitioners, had entered the Temple premises, including the Nadapandal, and engaged in illegal activities, including videography, on various occasions. They also showed a video showing Salim picking up a quarrel with devotees waiting for darshan in the Nadapandal and later celebrating her birthday by cutting a cake there. Consequently, they urged the Court to ban the entry of non-Hindus in Guruvayur temple and its premises.
The Court directed that the Temple was a special security zone as per Section 83(1) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, and videography of its interiors, especially through the eastern Deepastambham, cannot be permitted. The Court also directed that the Temple managing committee should ensure, through the security wing of the Devaswom, that no activity causing any disturbance to the devotees, which includes children of tender age, senior citizens and persons with disabilities, takes place in the Nadapanthal. It reminded the committee that it was duty-bound to provide facilities in the Temple for the proper worship of Lord Guruvayurappan by the devotees.
Various Hindu groups welcomed the High Court direction and said that it was a clear warning for all those trying to use spaces within the Temple premises for entertainment purposes and thus allegedly trying to defame the Hindu culture and beliefs.
RV Babu, state secretary, Hindu Aikya Vedi, reportedly said: “We welcome this order by the High Court. Many devotees had warned the woman vlogger while she was shooting the video as it had hurt their sentiments. Temple premises and the surrounding areas should be used only for performing poojas and rituals and activities that are connected to the Temple and not for promotions that have commercial interests.”
This is not the first time that courts have had to protect the right to practice one’s religion in peace. In January 2024, the Madras High Court had restricted the entry of non-Hindus into temples to protect the sanctity of the place of worship and prevent them from turning it into tourist spots. The judgment came in a matter related to the entry of non-Hindus in the Palani Murugan Temple. The ruling specifically stipulated that non-Hindus and those lacking Hindu beliefs are prohibited from proceeding beyond the Temple’s “Kodimaram”. Additionally, the judgment emphasised the necessity for prominently displaying notices conveying this restriction at various locations within the Temple premises.
The petition was filed in the wake of an argument that broke out when certain burqa-clad women were stopped from entering the Temple on the ground that they were non-Hindus. They, on the other hand, claimed they had already bought the tickets to the Temple, which, as per them, was a tourist place.
Notably, a group of Muslims were also caught eating non-vegetarian food in Brihadeeswara Temple premises in Thanjavur. Another group was seen eating meat in the Hampi Temple complex. A man was also caught offering namaz in a Hindu temple in UP. Amidst reports of such incidents, the appellant argued that preserving the sanctity of Hindu places of worship was essential.
He further argued that Muslims do not allow non-Muslim activities on mosque premises. “These rules of propriety, being a matter of Islamic religion, are promptly respected by all citizens of India embracing other religions. There are positive indications to hold that if a Hindu Temple is intended for the spiritual benefit of all classes of Hindus and the temple as a whole, starting from the Gopuram and leading to Kodimaram, Artha-Mandapam, Maha-Mandapam, and Garba Graham is to be kept undefiled and unpolluted; no non-Hindu can for pleasure and social evaluation seek entry into such places.”
The petitioner further stated that “to get fame and media attention, some problem makers are trying to enter the temple premises. The maximum devotees are observing fasting and coming to Pazhani for Darshan. Further, Pazhani Hill Temple is not a picnic spot, and the land has rich culture and epic.”
Interestingly, Section 3 of the Temple Entry Act allows all classes of Hindus to enter and offer worship in temples. Those who are not entitled to enter or offer worship in a temple include:
- Those who are not Hindus.
- Drunken or disorderly persons.
- Those suffering from a contagious disease.
- Persons of unsound mind except when taken for worship under proper control.
- Professional beggars.
The Act explicitly says that non-Hindus cannot use services inside temple premises. Even though the government had amended the rule and inserted provisions under which non-Hindus could be allowed in temples, it was challenged and struck down in the Supreme Court in 1972. The Court had then said: “It is well-known that there could be no such thing as an unregulated and unrestricted right of entry in a public temple or other religious institution for persons not connected with the spiritual functions thereof. It is a traditional custom universally observed not to allow access to any outsider to the particularly sacred parts of a temple, for example, the place where the deity is located. There are also fixed hours of worship and rest for the idol when no disturbance by any public member is allowed.”
The Madras High Court consequently directed the respondents in this case to not allow non-Hindus who do not believe in the Hindu religion and to install boards with the sign: “Non-Hindus are not allowed inside the temple after Kodimaram”.
The Court also said that “if any Non-Hindu claims to visit particular deity in the temple, then the respondents shall obtain an undertaking from the said Non-Hindu that he is having faith in the deity and he would follow the customs and practices of Hindu religion and also abide by the Temple customs and on such undertaking the said
Non-Hindu may be allowed to visit the temple. Whenever a Non-Hindu is allowed based on the undertaking, the same shall be entered in the register, which shall be maintained by the temple. The respondents shall maintain the temple premises by strictly following the agamas, customs and practices of the temple.”
In another recent controversy, influencer Kamiya Jani was trolled for entering the Jagannath Puri shrine as she was allegedly “known for promoting beef consumption”. Jani is the face of the online blog Curly Tales, and became the centre of a political slugfest between the BJP and the ruling BJD after her video with BJD leader VK Pandian on the Temple premises went viral. Demanding action against her, the BJP’s Odisha unit posted on X: “The sacred sanctity of Puri Srimandir, rich with historical and spiritual heritage, has been shamefully disregarded by VK Pandian, the chairman of 5T, who callously allowed a beef promoter into the revered premises of Jagannath Mandir.” Refuting this, Jani in an Insta story on her personal handle clarified that she has “never eaten beef”. “As an Indian, my mission is to take Indian culture and heritage to the world. I have been visiting all the Jyotirlingas and char dhams of India and what a privilege it’s been. Woke up to this strange article in newspaper questioning my visit to Jagannath temple. Not that anyone has reached out to me yet, but just here to clarify that I don’t and have never eaten beef. Jai Jagannath.”
In another incident, comedian Munawar Faruqui was arrested for jokes allegedly hurting Hindu sentiments as they included content on Hindu deities.
While India is a free country, respect for others’ religious beliefs is also part of that freedom.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi