If the dress code were to be implemented then Naga Sadhus seen during the famed Kumbh Mela would not be able to worship in temples – Justice Ramasubramanian
Chennai : The much-hyped dress code for devotees and visitors entering temples administered by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, which came into force in Tamil Nadu from the New Year, has been stayed by a division bench of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench).
The HR&CE Department had imposed a dress code for men, women and children based on an order passed by Justice S Vaidyanathan: the judge had mandated that men should wear dhoti or pyjama with upper cloth or formal pants and shirts and women should wear sari or half sari with blouse or churidhar with upper cloth. And children should come in any fully covered dress.
This had led to criticism as men in jeans were turned away and women wearing pants / jeans / skirts were not allowed inside temples. In this backdrop, the Tamil Nadu Government filed an appeal before a division bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and N Kirubakaran challenging the dress code. During the hearing on Monday, Advocate General A L Somayaji submitted that the dress code was not enforceable and as such unnecessary as the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, already dealt with restric-tions on entering places of worship.
Justice Ramasubramanian, who headed the bench, quipped that if this dress code were to be implemented then the Naga Sadhus seen during the famed Kumbh Mela would not be able to worship in temples. At this point, the Advocate General chipped in saying, “even the great Ramana Maharishi, if he was alive, would not be in a position to enter the temples now.” The counsel for another appellant, the All India Democratic Women’s Association, argued that the dress code was retrograde as “India is not Afghanistan” to ask women to cover themselves before entering temples. Agreeing, Justice Ramasubramanian said “not only beauty, even obscenity lies in the eyes of the beholder,” and stayed the order of the single judge. The bench then posted the case to January 18 for further hearing.
