The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has reiterated that non-Hindus visiting Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu must follow prescribed guidelines and respect the customs and practices of each temple, placing renewed focus on how temple authorities manage access to religious premises.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Thangam Venkatesh of Madurai. The petition seeks regulations to prevent non-Hindus from entering temple mandapams and proceeding beyond the flagstaff, according to the report before the court.
During the hearing, the judges referred to guidelines framed by the High Court in January 2024 in a similar case involving visits by non-Hindus to Hindu temples. The bench reiterated that visitors belonging to other faiths must comply with the prescribed norms when entering such premises.
The proceedings follow allegations by Hindu organisations that fisheries minister Srinath, described in the petition as a non-Hindu, recently visited the Tiruchendur Murugan temple without submitting a written undertaking affirming his faith in the deity and his willingness to respect Hindu religious beliefs and temple customs. The report does not state that the court made a final finding on those allegations.
The issue places temple entry within a formal administrative framework rather than leaving procedures entirely to informal practice. Written undertakings, restrictions on movement within temple premises and compliance with customs can affect how temple authorities receive visitors, communicate rules and handle access at different points inside a complex.
The bench also referred to Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay’s recent visit to the Meenakshi Amman temple in Madurai, where he followed the prescribed procedures. The judges further noted the presence of people from other faiths at the Arunachaleswarar temple in Tiruvannamalai.
Temple complexes are public-facing institutions that receive devotees, visitors and officials, often through tightly managed entry routes and internal zones. The court’s reiteration therefore places responsibility on temple administrations to apply the prescribed guidelines consistently while preserving the customs of the respective temples.
The petitioner’s demand specifically concerns access to mandapams and areas beyond the flagstaff, making the internal layout of temple premises central to the dispute. The reported observations also distinguish between visiting a temple and complying with rules governing movement and conduct within it.
The Madurai bench’s reference to the January 2024 guidelines indicates that the latest hearing is a reaffirmation of an existing framework rather than the announcement of an entirely new set of rules. The immediate administrative question is how those guidelines will be applied at individual temples and communicated to visitors.
The proceedings will continue within the framework of the public interest litigation filed before the Madurai bench. Further directions from the court will determine how the prescribed procedures are implemented and whether additional regulations are issued for access to temple mandapams and areas beyond the flagstaff.
