Madras High Court Landmark Judgment

It is entirely in the fitness of things that the Madras High Court, in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgement titled 'Balasubramaniyam Vs Collector' in WP No. 20267 of 2026 and WMP No. 21714 of 2026, WMP No. 21716 of 2026, and WMP No. 21717 of 2026, which was pronounced on 29.05.2026 and then finally uploaded on 17.06.2026, has restrained the construction of a church near a 100-year-old Mariyamman temple on Kalapatti Main Road in Coimbatore after observing explicitly that mala fide intentions could not be ruled out if a large church was proposed in the vicinity of the temple.

Division Bench Interim Order

It must be noted that a Division Bench comprising the Hon’ble Mr Justice GR Swaminathan and the Hon'ble Mr Justice V Lakshminarayanan passed the interim order on May 29 in a writ petition that had been filed by Balasubramaniyam N, who is a resident of Kalapatti in Coimbatore. We need to also note that in the present case, the Bench found that a prima facie case had been made out to restrain the church’s construction for now.

Bench Observations

Before stating anything else, it is stated by the Division Bench comprising the Hon’ble Mr Justice GR Swaminathan and the Hon'ble Mr Justice V Lakshminarayanan of the Madras High Court that:

“Calling for the records and quash the impugned order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the 1st Respondent and impugned order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent in their respective proceedings in Na.Ka.No.25818/2019/E2 and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove illegal construction in Old S.No.155/1,(New S.No.1276/3)and Old S.No.155/2(New S.No.1275)situate at Kalapatty Village, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore which is a government poramboke land and public road.”

Case Details

Case Title	Case Number	Date Pronounced	Date Uploaded	Judges	Location
Balasubramaniyam Vs Collector	WP No. 20267 of 2026, WMP Nos. 21714, 21716, 21717 of 2026	29.05.2026	17.06.2026	Justice GR Swaminathan, Justice V Lakshminarayanan	Kalapatti, Coimbatore

Key Points of the Judgment

• Restraint on Construction: The court restrained the construction of a church near a 100-year-old Mariyamman temple.
• Prima Facie Case: The Bench found sufficient grounds to halt construction temporarily.
• Concerns of Mala Fide Intentions: The court observed that mala fide intentions could not be ruled out.
• Government Land: The disputed construction was on government poramboke land and a public road.

At the very outset, this progressive, pragmatic, persuasive and pertinent judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice GR Swaminathan for a Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice V Lakshminarayanan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that,

“The writ petitioner is a resident of Kalapatti, which falls within the Coimbatore Corporation limit. He has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned communications issued by the District Collector, Coimbatore District, and the RDO, Coimbatore North, providing police protection to enable the sixth respondent herein to construct a church in the petition-mentioned site.”

Facts of the Case

Vacation Sitting Context

The Division Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case:

“This writ petition has been moved during the vacation sitting of this Court. When it was listed for admission on 21.05.2026, the counsel for the petitioner insisted on the issuance of short notice. Even though urgency had been set out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, we called upon the petitioner’s counsel to impress upon us as to why we should do so...”

• Political Context: Change of government headed by the honourable Chief Minister Shri C. Joseph Vijay.
• Statements: The honourable Speaker Shri JCD Prabhakar quoting biblical verses; Shri Udhayanidhi Stalin calling for the annihilation of Sanatana dharma.
• Policy Allegation: Thiru V.M.S. Mustafa stating annihilation of Sanatana Dharma is policy of ruling party.
• Posters: Calls for construction of churches in every village.

Resumption of Construction

Para 3 notes disruption in political ecosystem leading to resumption of church construction, prompting urgent relief during vacation sitting.

Opportunity to Respondent

Para 4: Counsel for the sixth respondent sought time; the court allowed a counter filing despite the issue being concluded.

Interim Relief

Para 5: Petitioner insisted on interim relief, requiring deeper factual analysis.

Temple vs Church Dispute

Para 6 highlights:

Survey Number	Religious Site	Details
155/1	Mariyamman Temple	Existed for more than 100 years
155/2	Church (Proposed)	Permission granted on 30.01.2010 despite opposition

• Demographics: 950 Hindu families, 15 Muslim families, very few Christian families.
• Litigation: O.S. No. 1378 of 2011 filed before District Munsif Court, Coimbatore (pending).
• Opposition: Severe local opposition prevented construction.
• Collector’s Role: Directed stoppage of construction to maintain peace.

Previous Litigation

Para 7 specifies that the Church of South India filed WP No. 8128 of 2024, disposed of on 28.04.2026. Relevant excerpts:

Court Order Excerpts

6. Perusal of records reveals that the petitioner church sought permission to put up an additional building in S.No.1276/3 (Old S.No.155/2), Kalapatty Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, and the first respondent granted permission vide proceedings dated 30.01.2010. The records further reveal that a suit in O.S. No. 1378 of 2011 seeking to declare the order of the first respondent dated 30.01.2010 as improper and for a permanent injunction is pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

Court Order and Directions

7. In view of the above, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, since expressing any opinion will adversely affect the interest of the parties in the suit in O.S.No.1378 of 2011, and without interfering with the impugned letter of the first respondent dated 16.06.2023, grants liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application for construction after disposal of the suit in O.S.No.1378 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

Petitioner’s Assertion

The counsel for the petitioner herein asserts that no church was ever in existence. Therefore, the question of putting up any additional building does not arise. Admittedly, the church is proposed to be put up in Old Survey No. 155/2. We perused the revenue records. It is clearly mentioned that S.No. 155/2 is a tar road.

Supreme Court Orders on Religious Structures

• Orders dated 29/09/2009 and 31/01/2018 in SLP No. 8519/2006 clarified that religious structures cannot be allowed on roads and road margins.
• In view of WP No. 8128 of 2024, the private respondent can make a fresh application for construction only after disposal of OS. No. 1378 of 2011.

Division Bench Findings

Title and Land Ownership

The Division Bench points out in para 8 holding that, “The material on record is utterly insufficient to conclude that the church is to come up on patta land. Title cannot vest in a private body when the revenue record indicates that it is a public road. In that event, title has to be established by filing a suit. As of date there is no declaration in favour of the Church.”

Requirement of NOC

Rule	Requirement
Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019	An application for building approval for a religious structure must be accompanied by an NOC from the District Collector.
Approval Process	Authority must examine the need for granting NOC, especially if there is strong opposition.

Constitutional Rights

Notably, the Division Bench notes in para 9 that, “Undoubtedly, there is a right to practise, profess and propagate religion as per Article 25 of the Constitution. Article 25(1) reads as follows:

(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.

This right is subject to public order. When the even tempo of public life is disturbed in a given locality, that would also fall within the scope of public order (vide Arun Ghosh v State of WB (1970) 1 SCC 98)).

Communal Sensitivity in Coimbatore

Most significantly and most commendably, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 10 the following: “Let us come to the case on hand. Coimbatore is a communally sensitive city. It witnessed bomb blasts and bloody religious riots. The proposed church would come up within a stone’s throw from the existing Mariyamman Temple. There are only a handful of Christian families. If a large church is proposed to be constructed in the vicinity of the Mariyamman Temple, mala fide intentions cannot be ruled out.”

Secularism and Religious Amity

• India is a secular nation and a pluralist society.
• Religious amity must be preserved.
• If a religious right is established, the state must aid in its enforcement.

Precedent from Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court in WP No. 46839 of 2019 dated 14.07.2020 (Sanathana Kalakshetra v. BBMP) held that there is no right to construct temples on a footpath and that this cannot be considered as an essential part of any religion or religious practice protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

Police Protection and Interim Order

10(a). Respondents 1 and 2 ought not to have called for police protection because though the permission was granted in 2010, the construction could not come up for thirteen years on account of the pendency of O.S. No. 1378 of 2011. Probably that was why the stop-work order was subsequently issued. Since the impugned communications are sought to be enforced, there is a need to grant an interim order.

Division Bench Case Law Reference

While citing the relevant case law, the Division Bench lays bare in para 11, disclosing that “One of us (VLNJ) vide order dated 22.01.2026 in A. Sarath v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai (WP No. 49192 of 2025) observed that the plea that the idol of Mother Velankanni has been in existence for more than 30 years is no defence at all and that every minute, nay, second that an illegal superstructure is on a public road or a street, it gives a fresh cause of action to the Commissioner to invoke his power under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act.”

Considerations on Patta Land

It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 12 that considerations could have been different if the construction were on patta land whose title is beyond dispute and there is no religious structure belonging to other communities in the immediate vicinity or if there is no opposition. In the case on hand, the revenue record indicates that the site is a public road. The location is too close to an old temple. There is also vigorous opposition.”

State Response to Opposition

It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench hastens to add in para 13, noting that, “We should not be understood as holding that if there is opposition, the State must submit to it. Far from it. If right is established or if the opposition is found to be unreasonable, then the state should go to any extent to uphold the right.”

Interim Injunction Order

Finally and far most significantly, the Division Bench then concludes in para 14, directing and holding in para 14 that, “We are satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out. Irreparable hardship and loss will be caused to social amity if an interim order is not granted. The balance of convenience is also against the private respondents, more so because of the earlier order made in WP No. 8128 of 2024. The political scenario may change. But so long as the position of law remains what it is, it is our duty to give effect to the same. When His Lordship Mr Justice M. Dhandapani had made it clear that after the conclusion of the suit, a fresh application can be submitted for the construction of the church, it obviously means that till the suit is disposed of, the status quo must be maintained. This order holds good as of date. It is conceded by the respondents that the suit instituted by the Hindu community against the construction of the church is still pending. Hence, there shall be an order of interim injunction.”

Summary of Judgment

• The Madras High Court made it clear that when the Hindu majority opposes construction of a church near a temple, authorities must listen.
• The Court noted petitioner’s claim that fundamentalist groups were emboldened after the Vijay-led government came to power.
• Political changes cannot alter the law.
• Interim injunction restrains construction of a church near Mariyamman Temple in Coimbatore.
• Religious rights under Article 25 of the Constitution of India are subject to public order.
• Authorities cannot ignore strong objections, revenue records showing land as a public road, and sensitive location.
• Construction of a large church near the temple was deemed a mala fide move.

Key Takeaways

Aspect	Observation
Case Law	A. Sarath v. Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai (WP No.49192 of 2025)
Land Status	The revenue record shows site is a public road
Opposition	Vigorous opposition from Hindu community
Judicial Direction	Interim injunction restraining construction of church
Constitutional Principle	Article 25 rights subject to public order

Conclusion

In a nutshell, the Madras High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the proposed construction of a church near an existing Mariyamman Temple in Coimbatore. The court emphasised that religious rights are subject to public order, and authorities must consider objections, land records, and the sensitive nature of the location. The construction was deemed mala fide and thus red-flagged by the court.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A - 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.