Separate festival permission was rightly denied absent evidence of exclusion or caste-based discrimination.

The petitioner, a member of the Devendrakula Velalar community, sought permission for himself and 13 other families to celebrate the Sri Arulmigu Singakkudi Amman Temple festival separately, alleging that they had been excluded from the community’s festival and denied participation.

Earlier proceedings concerned the alleged exclusion and the petitioner’s claimed temple-related rights; in an order dated 1 April 2026, the High Court had indicated that a claim concerning the right to serve as poosari should be taken to the competent HR&CE authority under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act

After a further direction to consider the petitioner’s representation, the police rejected his request on 17 August 2026, stating that the village festival had already been held and a separate celebration could create a law-and-order problem

The petitioner challenged that rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution

Whether the impugned rejection of permission to the petitioner and 13 families to celebrate the temple festival warranted interference, and whether they should be permitted to hold a separate festival

Whether the petitioner had established that he and the other families were excluded from the community or prevented from participating in the festival on caste grounds

The petition invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The judgment also referred to Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act as the route identified in an earlier proceeding for seeking adjudication of the petitioner’s claimed temple-related right; it did not decide that claim in this case

No precedent was cited.

The Court found insufficient material to establish that the petitioner and the 13 families had been excommunicated or prevented from joining the festival because of caste.

It noted that they belonged to the same community as the other families and that the village festival for the year had already been conducted, without their participation.

It accepted the police’s concern that permitting a separate celebration could create law-and-order problems, and considered the rejection consistent with the circumstances.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had not pursued the HR&CE remedy identified in the earlier order for his temple-related claim

The connected W.M.P.Crl.(MD) No. 1225 of 2026, which sought to alter the proposed festival dates, was closed without further order