Khushi Bajpai
Published on: August 28, 2022 at 18:48 IST
On Friday, the Madras High Court expressed its displeasure over the overwhelming number of cases involving law and order disruptions at temples.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh noted that although temples are a location for believers to seek tranquility, frequently they were also becoming a source of law-and-order issues, defeating the entire objective.
The best course of action in these situations is to shut down the affected temples in order to restore normalcy and tranquilly to the neighborhood. The sole judge remarked that it was paradoxical that closing a temple actually brought about calm.
During the hearing, the petitioner and others asked that their right to worship at the temple dedicated to their family deity be protected. The disputes in the temple were brought on by the parties’ respective right to worship.
While debating the matter, the Court lamented that “a temple must provide an environment to subside the ego of a person and on the contrary, it is becoming a breeding ground for collision of ego between persons and God is put to the back seat.”
According to the State’s attorney, the parties had frequently engaged in fights whenever a function was attempted at the temple, and despite repeated efforts, the conflicts did not end.
As a result, the temple was closed until everything was back to normal.
Therefore, the single-judge believed that giving a fit individual control over the temple’s administration would sufficiently resolve the ego conflicts and prevent anyone from feeling superior.
The judge commanded, “The Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE shall promptly step in and choose a fit person for the Temple.”
The Court stated that the appointment process had to be completed within ten days and that the temple would not be opened until after the appointment.
“It shall be assured that no act of violence results in a law-and-order issue, and in the event that such an occurrence occurs, the Superintendent of Police shall immediately take charge and action against the implicated persons shall be launched.”
The respondents were represented by Additional Government Pleader U Baranidharan, Advocate Guru Prasath, and Government Advocate Karthikeyan, while the petitioner’s attorneys were R Thirumoorthy and S Rajanikanth.