Kerala High Court Questions Temple's Use of Bouncers During Festival
The Kerala High Court has expressed strong disapproval over the controversial decision by the Cochin Devaswom Board to employ bouncers for managing devotees during the ongoing Vrischkolsavam festival at the historic Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple in Tripunithura.
A petition challenging this unusual practice has been filed by N Prakash, a resident of Maradu in Ernakulam, bringing to light what he describes as an illegal method of crowd control at the sacred temple premises.
Petition Reveals Shocking Details
According to the petition, the temple authorities engaged approximately 15 bouncers between November 22 and November 25 to manage the crowd of devotees visiting the temple during the important festival period.
The petitioner strongly contended that deploying bouncers, typically associated with entertainment venues and nightclubs, for controlling devotees at a place of worship is completely illegal and against the sanctity of the temple environment.
Prakash submitted a copy of a Times of India news report covering the matter as supporting evidence for his petition, highlighting the media attention this unusual practice has already attracted.
Contradictory Claims About Police Deployment
The temple authorities had apparently justified their decision by claiming a shortage of police personnel during the festival period, which they said compelled them to seek alternative security arrangements.
However, the petition presents a completely different picture. Prakash revealed that the Hill Palace police had actually deployed 70 personnel at the temple specifically for the festival period.
Even more significantly, the petitioner stated that temple authorities never requested additional police support, contradicting their claimed justification for hiring bouncers.
Judicial Response and Broader Implications
During the hearing, the bench comprising Justices V Raja Vijayaraghavan and K V Jayakumar did not hide their displeasure regarding the Devaswom Board's decision to deploy bouncers for crowd management at a religious institution.
The court has specifically sought instructions from the board regarding their controversial decision to hire bouncers and has adjourned the hearing of the plea to November 3 for further proceedings.
The petition raises serious concerns about the potential normalization of this practice, warning that if not curbed immediately, the employment of bouncers for crowd control could spread to other temples across the region, setting a dangerous precedent for religious institutions.
This case has sparked important conversations about appropriate crowd management methods in places of worship and the balance between security requirements and maintaining the spiritual atmosphere of religious sites.
