Court Upholds Religious Custom Over Extension of Darshan Time for Deity

The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking an extension of the darshan time for the deity Adhi Athi Varadhar beyond 48 days. It upheld the temple administration's decision to adhere to the established custom, emphasizing that matters of faith and religious customs should not be interfered with unless there is a clear violation of legal rights. The court also noted that disputed questions of fact, such as the interpretation of Agama rules, are not suitable for adjudication in writ proceedings and should be resolved in a competent civil court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Extension of darshan time for the deity Adhi Athi Varadhar beyond 48 days.
2. Violation of religious practices and customs.
3. Authority and jurisdiction of the District Collector versus temple administration.
4. Alleged violation of fundamental rights under Article 25 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Extension of Darshan Time:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to extend the darshan time of the deity Adhi Athi Varadhar beyond 48 days, arguing that due to the heavy rush, many devotees could not worship the deity, affecting their right to religious practice. They contended that there is no strict Agama rule mandating the deity's availability for only 48 days and cited historical instances where the darshan period was extended.

2. Violation of Religious Practices and Customs:
The respondents, including the temple administration and religious authorities, argued that the established custom and usage dictate that the deity should be available for darshan only for 48 days, representing one mandalam. They emphasized that any extension would violate Agama rules and established customs. The temple's Archagas and Sthanikars, along with the Thennachariya Dharishana Sabha, reiterated that the deity should be re-immersed after 48 days as per tradition.

3. Authority and Jurisdiction:
The petitioners questioned the District Collector's authority to decide on the festival's duration, asserting that such decisions should be made by the temple's Executive Officer. The respondents clarified that the temple administration, based on customs and religious practices, has the authority to decide the duration of the darshan period. The court noted that the District Administration acted on the advice of temple authorities and the Assistant Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department.

4. Alleged Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The petitioners claimed that their fundamental rights under Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 14 (equality before the law) of the Constitution were violated due to the restricted darshan period. The court, however, found no merit in this argument, stating that the petitioners could not seek an extension of the darshan period as a matter of right. The court emphasized that over one crore devotees had already had darshan, and the petitioners' inability to worship on a specific day did not constitute a violation of their fundamental rights.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the temple administration's decision to adhere to the established custom of a 48-day darshan period. The court emphasized that matters of faith and religious customs should not be interfered with unless there is a clear violation of legal rights. The court also highlighted that disputed questions of fact, such as the interpretation of Agama rules, are not suitable for adjudication in writ proceedings and should be resolved in a competent civil court.

---