The Madras High Court issued an order clarifying that the conduct of Kumbabishekam ceremonies in a temple cannot be undertaken by a single individual when the temple and the associated festival concern multiple communities residing in the same village. The court observed that Kumbabishekam is a significant religious event involving sacred rituals, customs, and collective participation, and therefore its organisation must reflect the communal nature of the worshippers associated with the temple. Where more than one community resides in a village and has a stake in the temples where the ceremony is to be conducted, the court held that it would be improper for any one individual or group to claim exclusive control over the festival.
The High Court emphasised that in villages where several communities coexist, religious festivals linked to common temples must be conducted in a manner that ensures equal participation and avoids exclusion or preferential treatment. The court stated that Kumbabishekam cannot be conducted by an individual, particularly in circumstances where multiple temples are involved and where worshippers from different communities have traditionally participated in the temple affairs. The court underscored that the purpose of judicial intervention in such matters is to maintain harmony and prevent disputes that could arise from claims of exclusive rights over religious ceremonies.
The matter before the court arose from a petition filed by a resident of Melapanankadi Village in the Madurai North region. The petitioner sought directions to the local Tahsildar and the Inspector of Police to form a committee comprising members from different communities in the village for the purpose of celebrating the Kumbabishekam festival. The petition stated that the festival was proposed to be conducted at several temples in the village and that the involvement of all communities was necessary to ensure peaceful and inclusive celebrations. The petitioner requested that representatives from the Mutharayar, Maravar, and Adhi Dravidar communities be included in the committee formed to conduct the festival.
During the proceedings, the court was informed that an earlier writ petition had been filed seeking the appointment of a fit person by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to manage the affairs of the temples. Pursuant to that earlier petition, a fit person had already been appointed. The present petition therefore focused on the conduct of the Kumbabishekam festival and the manner in which responsibilities for the ceremony should be allocated among the communities residing in the village. The court took note of the fact that the appointment of a fit person was already in place and that the remaining issue concerned inclusive participation in the festival.
One of the private respondents in the case submitted that they had the right to conduct the Kumbabishekam festival and sought permission to do so. The respondent claimed that they should be allowed to take responsibility for organising and conducting the religious ceremonies. However, the court did not accept this contention. It observed that when several communities live together in a village and share places of worship, no single community or individual can claim an exclusive right to conduct a major religious festival such as Kumbabishekam. The court highlighted that granting such a right would be contrary to principles of equality and could potentially lead to discrimination or conflict.
The High Court noted that there were as many as five communities residing in the village. In such circumstances, the court stated that the concept of “first honour” could not be extended to any one community or individual. The court made it clear that religious ceremonies in common temples must be conducted without granting preferential status or ceremonial precedence to any particular group. The idea of first honour, the court observed, has often been a source of dispute in villages with diverse populations, and judicial directions are necessary to prevent such disputes from escalating.
In its order, the court directed the fit person who had been appointed for the temples to constitute a committee consisting of one representative from each of the communities residing in the village. This committee, along with the fit person, was tasked with the responsibility of conducting the Kumbabishekam festival. The court specified that the committee should be inclusive and representative, ensuring that all communities have a voice in the organisation and execution of the festival. By mandating the formation of such a committee, the court sought to ensure collective responsibility and shared participation.
The court further directed that the Kumbabishekam festival should be conducted jointly by the fit person and the committee at all the temples mentioned in the petition. These temples included the Sri Muniyandi Swamy Temple, the Sri Ayyanar Swamy Temple, the Sri Karuppa Swamy Temple, and the Sri Muthumariamman Swamy Temple. The court’s order made it clear that the committee’s role extended to all these temples and that the festival should be conducted in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner across all places of worship involved.
A key aspect of the court’s directive was its insistence that there should be no discrimination in the conduct of the festival. The court explicitly stated that no person or community should be accorded first honour or any special privilege during the Kumbabishekam ceremonies. The court stressed that the entire process should be carried out in a spirit of equality and mutual respect, reflecting the shared religious and cultural heritage of the village residents. The order reiterated that the objective of forming a committee was to prevent exclusion and ensure harmonious participation.
In addition to directing the formation of the committee, the court also issued instructions regarding the transfer of records and documents related to the temples. It directed that the fifth respondent in the case should hand over all relevant records to the fit person and the committee. This direction was intended to ensure transparency and continuity in the management of temple affairs and the conduct of the festival. By providing access to records, the court aimed to equip the committee and the fit person with the necessary information to carry out their responsibilities effectively.
The court’s order highlighted the importance of administrative coordination in the conduct of religious festivals involving multiple stakeholders. It recognised that disputes over temple administration and festival conduct often arise from a lack of clarity regarding authority and representation. By clearly defining the roles of the fit person and the committee, the court sought to establish an orderly framework for the conduct of the Kumbabishekam festival and to reduce the likelihood of conflict among community members.
The case was titled Rathinam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others and was heard as a criminal writ petition. The proceedings involved representations from both private parties and government authorities. The presence of law enforcement and administrative officials as respondents reflected the petitioner’s concern that disputes over the festival could affect public order. The court’s directions were therefore aimed not only at ensuring religious equality but also at maintaining peace and harmony in the village.
The High Court’s observations underscored the principle that religious festivals associated with common temples are collective events that belong to all worshippers, regardless of community affiliation. The court recognised that temples in villages often serve as shared spaces for worship and cultural expression, and that their festivals should be conducted in a manner that fosters unity rather than division. The insistence on a multi-community committee was rooted in this understanding of temples as inclusive institutions.
By holding that Kumbabishekam cannot be conducted by an individual in such circumstances, the court reaffirmed the idea that personal or community dominance over shared religious practices is incompatible with constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination. The court’s directive reflected a balancing of religious freedom with the need to ensure that such freedom is exercised in a manner that does not infringe upon the rights of others.
The order also demonstrated the judiciary’s role in resolving disputes arising from traditional practices that intersect with modern principles of equality. While acknowledging the religious significance of Kumbabishekam, the court made it clear that traditional practices must be adapted to ensure inclusivity in multi-community settings. The formation of a representative committee was presented as a practical solution to reconcile religious customs with the realities of diverse village populations.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s order established that the conduct of Kumbabishekam festivals in temples serving multiple communities must be entrusted to a collective body rather than an individual. By directing the formation of a committee comprising representatives from all communities and by emphasising the absence of first honour or discrimination, the court sought to ensure that the festival would be conducted peacefully, inclusively, and in accordance with principles of equality. The decision highlighted the importance of shared responsibility and mutual respect in the conduct of religious ceremonies in pluralistic societies.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.