The Madras High Court on Wednesday left it to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department to consider the possibility of performing daily puja at the sealed Dharmaraja Droupadi Amman Temple in Melpadi village, Villupuram district. The temple was sealed by revenue officials earlier this month following a dispute between Caste Hindus and the Scheduled Caste devotees over the latter not being allowed to worship the deity.
Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu disposed of a public interest litigation petition after granting liberty to the petitioner Sudha Sarveshkumar, a local resident, to approach HR&CE officials, if she was so advised, and made it clear that her representation should be considered on its own merits. The orders were passed after hearing the petitioner’s counsel and Advocate General R. Shunmugasundaram.
The judges recorded the A-G’s submission that the Villupuram Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) had exercised his power under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to seal the temple and that the decision was taken to prevent law and order problems due to the dispute between different caste groups. The A-G further stated that the RDO had scheduled the next hearing on July 9.
When the judges wanted to know who was administering the temple, the A-G said the HR&CE department had appointed an Executive Officer as a Fit Person, but the locals had not allowed him to take charge. On the other hand, the petitioner claimed that the charged atmosphere in the village was created by unscrupulous elements due to political enmity between devotees of different caste groups.
“Untouchability was not practised in the temple and no person from the Scheduled Caste was denied entry into the temple,” she said. The petitioner insisted that the temple could not be kept sealed without performing of daily puja and other rituals.
Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, rituals were performed diligently even though devotees were not allowed to visit temples. Non-performance of rituals would affect the sanctity, the petitioner claimed.
