Madras HC directs police to ensure people of all castes can attend temple consecration and prevent exclusion

The petitioner sought police protection to conduct a Kumbabishekam on 25 October 2026 at four temples in Sathanur Village, claiming that the Sri Madura Kaliyamman Public Charitable Trust had been managing and renovating them.

In a pending civil suit concerning the temples, the Additional District Munsif had permitted the Kumbabishekam; although an appeal was reportedly filed, that order had not been stayed.

The petitioner’s representation seeking police protection was not considered.

The HR & CE Department asserted that the temple was under its control and that the sixth respondent was its Fit Person; concerns were also raised that members of other communities might be excluded from the ceremony.

The petitioner filed an undertaking that people would be permitted to attend irrespective of caste or creed.

Whether police protection should be directed for the proposed Kumbabishekam, given the existing civil-court order and the parties’ competing concerns.

Whether participation in the Kumbabishekam should be protected against exclusion based on caste, creed, or colour, and whether the Fit Person should be permitted to attend.

The Court noted that the civil court’s order appeared to have been made under Sections 151 and 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, rather than under a provision attracting an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1; however, it left the question of appealability to the Subordinate Judge and observed that the order remained valid and in force because it had not been stayed.

The Court also applied the principles reflected in the petitioner’s undertaking and the Fit Person’s role: all persons, irrespective of caste, creed, or colour, were to be permitted to participate, and the Fit Person was entitled to participate by virtue of that office.

The Court considered that the civil court had permitted the ceremony and that its order remained operative, while the petitioner had undertaken not to exclude participants on caste or creed grounds.

It regarded the stated fear of exclusion as unfounded in light of that undertaking, and held that the Fit Person’s attendance was consistent with the office’s role in the temple’s secular management.

It therefore made police protection conditional on the petitioner and the Fit Person jointly inspecting the temple and reporting that construction was complete.

The Court left the underlying management dispute to the pending civil suit.

If the petitioner and the Fit Person reported to the second respondent that temple construction was complete, the police were directed to provide protection for the Kumbabishekam on 25 October 2026.

All persons, irrespective of caste, creed, or colour, were to be permitted to participate; the police were directed to act if anyone was prevented from participating on that basis.

The Court did not decide the parties’ competing claims to temple management, which remained for the civil suit.

No costs were ordered.