“Deity May Not Vote, But Constitution Speaks”: Madras HC Finds Wilful Contempt Over Delay in Recovering 507 Acres of Temple Land [Read Order]

Chennai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has recorded a finding of wilful contempt against State officials for failing to implement its 2019 directions for the recovery of approximately 507 acres of land belonging to Arulmigu Balasubramaniyaswami Temple, Vennaimalai, Karur District, while choosing to withhold punishment in pursuit of the larger public and religious interest involved.

A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice B. Pugalendhi passed the order on February 27, 2026, in Cont.P (MD) No. 371 of 2024, closing the contempt petition for the present with a fresh set of directions.

The petitioner, A. Radhakrishnan, a devotee appearing party-in-person, had filed WP (MD) No. 64 of 2018 seeking removal of encroachments over approximately 500 acres of land belonging to the over-1,000-year-old temple in Karur District. During the writ proceedings, the District Revenue Officer categorised the temple lands into five categories based on the nature of encroachment and the state of revenue records.

By order dated October 23, 2019, the Court issued category-wise directions requiring, among other things, removal of encroachments within six months for Categories 1 and 2, filing of civil suits within three months for Category 3, and initiation of proceedings under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act for Categories 4 and 5.

Alleging deliberate non-compliance, the petitioner filed the present contempt petition in 2024. Progress remained negligible, prompting the Court to direct the personal appearance of the Commissioner, HR & CE; Joint Commissioner; Superintendent of Police, Karur; and other officials. A monitoring committee was constituted in September 2024, but effective execution did not follow. The Court suo motu impleaded former Executive Officers and Joint Commissioners who had been in charge of the temple during the relevant period, and subsequently the District Collector and Superintendent of Police.

The Court noted that eviction attempts in November 2025 were thwarted due to protests by a sitting Member of Parliament, political leaders and members of certain organisations, including one styled “Inam Land Farmers Lessees and House Site Owners Protection Movement.”

The Court observed that for the routine act of affixing a flex board declaring temple ownership, three Deputy Superintendents of Police, five Inspectors of Police and 132 police personnel had to be deployed — a deployment that itself reflected the intensity of organised resistance. The Court noted that among the 230 encroachers, 27 were government officers, 49 were industrialists, and 38 were persons wielding considerable influence. This very composition, the Court observed, raised a disturbing possibility explaining why, irrespective of party lines, there appeared to be consistent reluctance on the part of the political establishment to permit authorities to carry the Court’s orders to their logical conclusion.

The Court held that the 2019 directions were clear and time-bound and that nearly six years had elapsed. It found that even after the Supreme Court dismissed all Special Leave Petitions arising from the matter by a common order dated November 3, 2025, leaving no legal impediment, HR & CE officials continued to remain inactive. The Court held that continued inaction thereafter constituted wilful and deliberate disobedience, and that the majesty of law could not be made contingent upon crowd approval.

While recording a clear finding of wilful contempt, the Bench exercised restraint in imposing punishment, observing that contempt jurisdiction exists to secure compliance and uphold the authority of law, and that punishment is a means, not an end. The Court noted that the true sufferer was not the Court but the Temple, and that the objective was restoration of 507 acres of endowed property.

Making pointed constitutional observations, the Court remarked that a deity recognised as a juristic person in law could not be left remediless merely because it did not participate in elections. It held that constitutional governance is not subordinate to electoral expediency, and invoked the Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction. It further observed that when judicial orders are stalled by organised resistance, the rule of law itself stands tested.

Closing the contempt petition for the present, the Court directed civil courts dealing with suits relating to the subject temple lands to endeavour to dispose of them expeditiously, preferably within six months, and directed that suits in which interim protection was declined be taken up for early final disposal. The HR & CE Department was directed to file a comprehensive status report once every three months detailing lands recovered, proceedings initiated, suits filed, the stage of litigation and eviction steps taken.

The Superintendent of Police, Karur, was directed to ensure adequate protection to eviction officials and deal strictly with any obstruction. The Registrar of Societies was directed to enquire into the activities of the organisations involved and take appropriate action if illegal activities are found.

The Court reminded officials that compliance with judicial orders is not optional and that the authority of the Court does not depend upon executive convenience.

With the above directions, the petition was closed for the present.

For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, Party-in-person.
For the Respondents: Mr. N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr. N. Ramesh Arumugam, Government Advocate (R1, R3, R4) and Mr. T. Senthilkumar, Additional Public Prosecutor (R18); Mr. R. Baranidharan (R2); Mr. A.K. Sriram, Senior Counsel for Mr. P. Athimoolapandan, Standing Counsel (R5, R15–R17); Mr. K. Govindarajan (R6); Mr. Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. P. Subburaj, Special Government Pleader (R7, R8, R10, R11); Mr. V. Chandrasekar (R9, R13, R14); Mr. C.K. Chandrasekar for Mr. P. Athimoolapandan, Standing Counsel (R12).

Case Title: A. Radhakrishnan v. P. Madhusudhanreddy & Ors., Cont.P (MD) No. 371 of 2024

[Read Order]