Source: High Court of Madras 

Why in News? 

Recently Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy has held that no caste can claim temple ownership, as temple administration is not a protected religious practice under Articles 25 and 26. 

• The High Court of Madras held this in the matter of C. Ganesan v. The Commissioner (2025).

What was the Background of C. Ganesan v. The Commissioner Case? 

• C. Ganesan filed a writ petition against the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department. 
• The petition concerned a group of temples administratively combined, including Arulmighu Mariamman, Angalamman, Perumal, and Ponkaliamman Temples. 
• The primary contention was the administrative structure of these temples, specifically focusing on the Arulmighu Ponkaliamman Temple. 
• The petitioner claimed that the Ponkaliamman Temple was exclusively maintained and administered by members of a specific caste. 
• In contrast, other temples in the group involved administrative participation from people of different castes. 
• Ganesan sought a judicial directive to separate the Ponkaliamman Temple from the administrative group. 
• The request was fundamentally based on caste-specific administrative segregation. 
• The petition aimed to establish a caste-exclusive administrative mechanism for the temple. 
• The legal application challenged the existing administrative framework of religious institutions. 
• The underlying motivation appeared to be maintaining caste-based administrative distinctions. 
• Constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination were directly challenged by the petition. 
• The proposed administrative separation violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court strongly provides that caste cannot be considered a religious denomination under the Constitution of India. 
• Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that temple administration based on caste identity is not a protected religious practice under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. 
• The court explicitly stated that a public temple must be accessible, manageable, and administrable by all devotees, regardless of caste. 
• The judicial observation states that attempt to disguise caste discrimination under the guise of religious practices are fundamentally unconstitutional. 
• The court referenced previous Supreme Court judgments, particularly the Kashi Vishwanath Temple case, to reinforce the principle that caste cannot be a basis for religious institutional management. 
• The observation critically noted that believers often try to perpetuate caste hatred by misusing religious denomination protections, viewing temples as breeding grounds for divisive social instincts. 
• The court emphatically declared that the constitutional goal is to create a casteless society, and any practice perpetuating caste divisions is inherently against the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution. 

What are the Constitutional Provisions Relating to the Right of Religion? 

• Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. 
• This fundamental right is available to both citizens and non-citizens, covering both religious beliefs and religious practices. 
• The article allows the State to make laws regulating economic, financial, political, or secular activities associated with religious practices. 
• Article 26 provides religious denominations the right to establish and maintain religious and charitable institutions, manage their religious affairs, and own and administer property. 
• To be recognized as a religious denomination, a group must have:  
  • A system of beliefs conducive to spiritual well-being. 
  • A common organization. 
  • A distinctive name. 
• Article 27 prohibits compelling any person to pay taxes specifically meant for promoting or maintaining a particular religion or religious denomination. 
• Article 28 regulates religious instruction in educational institutions, distinguishing between:  
  • State-maintained institutions (no religious instruction). 
  • State-administered institutions with specific religious trust requirements. 
  • Institutions recognizing voluntary religious instruction. 
• These constitutional provisions collectively ensure religious freedom while maintaining the secular fabric of the Indian state, balancing individual religious rights with broader social harmony and public interest.