Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court ordered the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department to take appropriate action against the trustee and employees of the Devi Karumari Amman Temple, Tiruverkadu, after they were found recording Instagram reels within the temple premises. The court expressed its dismay at how temple officials could engage in such activities, especially within a space regarded as sacred by hundreds of devotees. Justice M. Dhandapani, presiding over the case, directed that an action report be submitted by the HR&CE Commissioner and the temple’s Executive Officer by October 29, 2024.

The court was responding to a petition filed by K. Jayaprakash, a resident of Nagapattinam, who highlighted that the trustee and 12 women had filmed and shared a dance video on social media within the temple’s sanctum, causing widespread discontent among devotees. The petitioner alleged that despite restrictions on mobile phone use within the temple, the trustee and her team violated these rules, tarnishing the temple’s sanctity and disrespecting the presiding deity.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

The petitioner, K. Jayaprakash, approached the High Court after no action was taken following his repeated representations to the HR&CE Department and the temple’s Executive Officer. In his petition, Jayaprakash pointed out that the incident occurred on April 14, 2024, when temple trustee Valarmathi, along with a group of 12 women, filmed a dance performance for social media inside the temple. This performance took place in front of the sanctum sanctorum, where the presiding deity is housed. According to Jayaprakash, the crew, dressed in coordinated outfits, performed a synchronized dance sequence, which was later shared as an Instagram reel.

Jayaprakash further submitted that the temple management had previously issued a ban on mobile phone use inside the temple, aimed at preserving the sanctity and spiritual atmosphere of the space. However, the trustee and her crew disregarded these restrictions and filmed the video, which subsequently went viral, attracting public criticism.

In his petition, Jayaprakash highlighted that the incident offended the religious sentiments of the devotees and was widely condemned in the media. He argued that the trustee’s behavior not only violated temple principles but also disrespected the sanctity of the presiding deity. Jayaprakash also alleged that Valarmathi’s influential position within her community had shielded her from facing any repercussions from the temple authorities, despite the public outcry.

The petitioner stressed that a change in temple leadership was necessary to safeguard its values and ensure its operations align with the religious expectations of the community. He requested that the court direct the HR&CE Commissioner and the temple’s Executive Officer to take strict action against the trustee and her associates, holding them accountable for their actions.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The HR&CE Department and temple authorities, represented by the Commissioner and Executive Officer, were tasked with responding to the petitioner’s claims. Although no action had been taken against the trustee and her crew before the court’s intervention, the department did not deny that the incident had occurred.

The respondents were expected to clarify their stance, explaining the lack of immediate disciplinary action. Given the serious nature of the allegations and the public’s outrage over the incident, the court sought an explanation as to why the trustee and employees were allowed to continue in their roles without accountability. The HR&CE Department had to address the petitioner’s accusations that the trustee’s influence within the local community had prevented any meaningful response from the temple administration.

Additionally, the temple management was expected to explain the failure to enforce the ban on mobile phones inside the temple. This policy, intended to maintain the sacred atmosphere of the temple, was clearly disregarded during the filming of the social media video, raising questions about the effectiveness of temple leadership in upholding regulations.

Court’s Observations:

Justice M. Dhandapani, while hearing the case, expressed strong disapproval of the actions taken by the temple trustee and employees. He emphasized that a temple is a sacred space visited by hundreds of devotees daily, and such inappropriate behavior by temple officials tarnishes the sanctity and respect accorded to the deity. The court was particularly concerned that the trustee herself was involved in the act, making it all the more unacceptable.

Justice Dhandapani remarked that shooting dance videos inside the temple for social media, especially in front of the deity, could lead to the presiding deity “losing respect” in the eyes of the devotees. He noted that allowing such incidents would mock the religious space and insult devotees who come to the temple with faith and reverence.

The court was critical of the temple authorities for not taking immediate action after the incident, especially since the video went viral and was widely reported in the media. The judge found it troubling that despite the gravity of the situation, the temple administration had failed to uphold the sanctity of the temple and discipline those responsible.

Court’s Judgment:

In its judgment, the Madras High Court directed the HR&CE Department and the temple’s Executive Officer to take strict action against the temple trustee, Valarmathi, and the 12 employees involved in the video filming. The court ordered the department to submit an action report by October 29, 2024, detailing the steps taken to hold the responsible parties accountable. The court made it clear that such behavior within a temple is unacceptable and must be rectified immediately.

The court did not impose any immediate penalties on the trustee and her crew, instead giving the temple management the responsibility of handling the situation appropriately. However, it warned that if the HR&CE Department failed to act, the court would step in to ensure accountability. The judgment reflected the court’s determination to protect the sanctity of religious spaces and prevent their misuse for personal or social media gain.

In its oral remarks, the court emphasized the importance of maintaining the dignity and respect of religious places, particularly those visited by large numbers of devotees. Justice Dhandapani reiterated that a temple is not a venue for entertainment or social media antics, and those entrusted with its management should act with the highest degree of responsibility and respect.