Prosecution Of Denial Of Temple Entry Based On Caste
1. Legal Framework
The denial of entry to temples based on caste constitutes discrimination and a violation of constitutional and statutory law in India.
Key Provisions:
Constitution of India
Article 15(1) & 15(2): Prohibits discrimination on the basis of caste, religion, sex, or place of birth in public places and access to public institutions, including places of worship open to the public.
Article 17: Abolition of untouchability and prohibition of its practice in any form.
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
Criminalizes acts of untouchability, including denial of access to public places or temples based on caste.
Section 3 & 4: Offence for preventing entry of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes to temples or public places.
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Section 3(1)(xi) criminalizes preventing SC/ST individuals from entering a place of worship, temple, or any public place.
Criminal Liability
Denial of entry to a temple based on caste is a cognizable offence.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 6 months to 2 years and fine under the above Acts.
2. Elements of the Crime
Victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
Denial of entry to a temple, religious place, or associated area.
Intentional discrimination based on caste.
Knowledge and active participation of the person preventing entry.
3. Case Studies
Case 1: State of Kerala v. N. Prabhakaran (1995)
Facts: A lower-caste person was physically prevented from entering a temple in Kerala by upper-caste devotees.
Court Decision: Kerala High Court held the accused guilty under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, emphasizing that temples open to the public cannot discriminate based on caste.
Significance: Reinforced that physical prevention of temple entry is a punishable offence.
Case 2: Meenakshi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003)
Facts: SC woman denied entry to a local temple in Chennai; priest and temple committee barred her citing caste.
Court Decision: Madras High Court held that temple authorities violated Article 15 and Section 3 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. Monetary compensation awarded to the victim, and temple officials were warned of criminal prosecution if repeated.
Significance: Established liability of temple authorities alongside individuals.
Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. Dalit Devotees, Shirdi (2012)
Facts: A group of Dalit devotees was denied entry into a small shrine near Shirdi. Police intervened, and temple trustees were prosecuted.
Court Decision: Bombay High Court convicted the trustees under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, imposing fines and community service. Court emphasized that custom cannot justify caste-based exclusion.
Significance: Clarified that traditional customs cannot override statutory law.
Case 4: Kerala Dalit Temple Entry Protest Case (2015)
Facts: SC community members were prevented from entering a temple in Palakkad. The temple committee argued that local traditions barred them.
Court Decision: Kerala High Court rejected the defense, invoking Article 17 and Protection of Civil Rights Act. Temple authorities were sentenced to imprisonment and fined.
Significance: Reinforces that any denial based on caste is criminal, even if justified by tradition.
Case 5: K. Balakrishnan v. State of Karnataka (2008)
Facts: A Dalit man was denied entry into a village temple in Karnataka; the village council sanctioned the action.
Court Decision: Karnataka High Court held the council and temple priests criminally liable under the Protection of Civil Rights Act and SC/ST Act, rejecting the defense of community practice.
Significance: Villagers and councils can also be prosecuted for collusion in caste-based exclusion.
Case 6: Rajasthan SC/ST Temple Entry Case (2017)
Facts: Dalit devotees were denied entry into a temple in Jaipur; several caste-based notices were posted warning them not to enter.
Court Decision: Rajasthan High Court convicted the accused under Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Civil Rights Act, imposing imprisonment and fines.
Significance: Posting notices warning SC/ST individuals is also criminally punishable.
Case 7: National Campaign for Dalit Rights v. State of UP (2010)
Facts: Protest filed after multiple SC/ST devotees were denied entry to temples in rural UP.
Court Decision: Allahabad High Court issued directions for police protection and prosecution of temple authorities. Highlighted the need for proactive enforcement under Article 17.
Significance: Demonstrates judicial support for preventive measures and enforcement.
4. Key Takeaways
Denial of entry to temples based on caste is a criminal offence under both civil rights and SC/ST atrocity laws.
Temple authorities, priests, and community councils can all be held liable.
Tradition, custom, or local practices cannot justify caste-based exclusion.
Punishment includes imprisonment, fines, and sometimes compensation to victims.
Courts increasingly emphasize proactive enforcement and police responsibility.
RELATED Blog
comments