The Madurai bench of Madras High Court, on Thursday, February 24, had asked if the temples in the state ‘continue to be under the thumb of the government.’ The court made the observation while quashing two FIRs against temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan, who was booked in 2019 for posting allegedly defamatory posts on social media against the Srirangam Ranganatha Swamy Temple management.
While considering the plea, Justice GR Swaminathan observed that the temple lands “endowed for their maintenance” have been “gobbled up by private interests” and that “antique idols have been stolen and smuggled overseas.” The judge then asked why the temples should continue to remain under government control.
“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 TR 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?” He added that “such questions and thoughts” crossed his mind because the petitioner was “not only a passionate devotee but also an activist.”
Rangarajan had been booked for two posts on his Facebook page named ‘Shri Rama Banam,’ where he had alleged that an attempt was made to steal a centuries old lamp in the sanctum sanctorum of the temple. In another post, he had alleged that trees were being cut at Uthara street by the temple administration. According to reports, the temple joint commissioner Pon Jayaraman filed a police complaint against him, alleging that Rangarajan was ‘defaming the temple administration and disrupting religious sentiments and beliefs of people and devotees.’ Based on his complaint, Srirangam police had arrested Rangarajan Narasimhan in 2019.
Later, Ranjarajan moved the High Court with a request to quash the FIRs against him. His counsel submitted to the court that the former chairman of the temple’s Board of Trustees, Venu Srinivasan and former commissioner Jayaraman ‘conspired’ to file a complaint against him as he was “exposing several wrong doings of the temple management.” Meanwhile, the temple board contended that there is ‘no iota of truth in any of the allegations made by the petitioner’ and sought prosecution.
Hearing his plea, Justice Swaminathan said that “the level of discourse or debate must always conform to the highest standards of civility,” while commenting on the fact that the petitioner (Narasimhan) had targeted Padma Bhushan recipient Venu Srinivasan, the ex-chairman of the board of trustees of the temple.
Further, saying that “there can be no place for force or violence even in the slightest degree,” Justice Swaminathan added, “Of course, I am not here to dish out sermons to the petitioner. I am no Prashant Kishor. The petitioner has not come to me for consultation. He has come seeking adjudication and I better confine my role to that.”
Rangarajan had been booked under sections 500 (Defamation) and 505(2) (Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill will between classes) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and one relevant section of the Information Technology Act.
Striking down the case, the judge said that Section 505(2) of the IPC would not apply as Narasimhan’s allegations did not involve two groups and so, he “has not pitted one group against the other.”
“The petitioner is a Vaishnavite. So is the fourth respondent. The Srirangam Lord Ranganathaswamy Temple is the most important Vaishvanite institution and the fifth respondent is its executive officer. Thus, there is no pitting of one group against the other,” the judge observed.
Justice GR Swaminathan also ruled out the application of Section 500 of the IPC on legal grounds, and added that section 45 of the IT Act provided only a civil remedy and was not a penal provision.
Rangarajan Narasimhan was in the news in December 2021, when he had stopped Bharatanatyam dancer Zakir Hussain from entering the Srirangam Ranganatha Swamy Temple when the latter had gone there to offer prayers.
Following this episode, the Joint Commissioner of HR and CE department of the temple S Marimuthu had lodged a complaint seeking criminal action against him for forcing the dancer to exit the temple.