Read Time: 06 minutes

The Madras High Court has raised some pertinent questions with respect to administration of Hindu temples while quashing an FIR against a devotee who alleged mismanagement by officials managing Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple.

Justice GR Swaminathan at the Madurai bench questioned whether temples should continue to be under the thumb of the government, especially since it professes to be secular and claims to treat all religious institutions at par.

"Should they continue to be under the thumb of the government? Should not the government professing to be secular treat all religious institutions on par? Are not knowledgeable and committed activists like Shri T.R. Ramesh justified in arguing that the government should exercise the same degree and level of control over temples as are exercised over churches and mosques?"

Court has reflected on the need to revive the glory of temples in India.

"Tamil Nadu is a land of temples. They have played a central role in our culture. However, their current condition leaves a lot to be desired. Lands endowed for their maintenance have been gobbled up by private interests. Antique idols have been stolen and smuggled overseas. The temple staff are paid a pittance. Thousands of temples are facing utter neglect. Even poojas are not being performed. Much needs to be done to revive their glory," said the bench

Court was hearing a plea seeking quashing of FIRs,  under Section 482 of the CrPC against activist Rangarajan Narsimhan, filed at behest of  the Executive officer of the temple after he made defamatory allegations against the management on social media under section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code [Promoting enmity between groups]. It was the case of Narsimhan that he was targeted because he was exposing several wrong doings of the temple management and the commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HRCE) and the Ex-chairman of the Board of Trustees of the temple conspired with each other to lodge the impugned FIRs against him.

Court said that neither are the FIRs maintainable as FIRs under the IPC cannot be filed on account of alleged defamation and nor are the ingredients of section 505(2) IPC present. Court noted that the petitioner is a Vaishnavite and so is the person who has filed the FIR. "The Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple is the most important Vaishnavite institution and the fifth respondent is its executive officer," Court said.

"The petitioners allegations do not involve two groups at all. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly held that unless one group os pitted against the other ..(..).. the penal provisions are not at all attracted."

Court further noted that the FIR under section 45 of the Information Technology Act against the petitioner is also not maintainable. 

"Section 45 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provides only a civil remedy and is not a penal provision. Looked at from any angle, the impugned FIRs are not maintainable. Allowing the prosecution to continue would only be an abuse of legal process. The impugned FIRs are quashed," Court ordered.

Case Title: Rangarajan Narsimhan Vs. Inspector of Police, Srirangam P.S. & Ors.