(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent 1-3 to direct the fourth respondent Temple to print the invite mentioning the Mandagapadi with the name of Mandagapididharars as per the long standing practice, custom and usage of the said Temple being followed for all these years for the ensuing Panguni festival between 22. 03.2026 to 14.04.2026.)

1. The writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to direct the fourth respondent temple to print the invite, mentioning the mandagapadi with the names of the mandagapadidarars as per the long-standing practice, custom, and usage of the said temple, being followed for all these years for the ensuing Panguni festival between 22.03.2026 and 14.04.2026.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, by pointing out the customary practice that was prevailing in the temple, would submit that the representation of the petitioners is to print the names of the petitioners in the invitation along with their ‘pattapeyar’ (gL;Lg;bgau;).

3. The pattapeyar is not any pattam (gL;Lk;) in that sense, but it is the name of the caste. Caste is the non-existent thing, which is existent only in the minds of the people and the system that was followed is against the constitutional principles of equality. Temple festivals cannot be a breeding ground for the proliferation of the caste. The constitutional mandate is only to promote an egalitarian society and to annihilate the caste and the caste differences.

4. That being the position, the petitioners' prayer to include the caste name cannot be countenanced. The petitioners also point out that in respect of some other persons, the name bordering on the caste is mentioned. That also should not be undertaken in the ensuing years. To have persons wash one's clothes on the basis of his birth by itself is against all tenets of human rights. The same should not be recognized even directly or indirectly and even in the invitation. In any event, the said persons are not before this Court.

5. As far as the petitioners’ claim is concerned, considering the fact that the claim is opposed to public policy and unconstitutional, I am unable to heed the prayer made by the petitioner. Further, in the invitation, in a generic manner, the persons who are sponsoring or conducting the mandapadi are mentioned as ‘urkarargal’ (Cu;fhuu;fs;), which is fair and correct.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.