Madras High Court
Religious and Personal LawAdministrative and Public Law

The Festival Idol Must Be Placed at the Customary Thinnai Before Being Taken to the Temple.

Sasikumar vs The Commissioner

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 14, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
The Festival Idol Must Be Placed at the Customary Thinnai Before Being Taken to the Temple.. Sasikumar vs The Commissioner. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner sought a direction permitting the conduct of the annual festival’s initial puja (Mudhal Poojai) at Arulmigu Periya Muthaalamman Temple in accordance with previous practice.

Source reference: p. 1; para. 1

He contended that the idols of five villages were placed at the Sadaiyandi Kovil Thinnai in Devarappanpatti, where there was insufficient space for a joint puja.

Source reference: p. 1; para. 1

Ganesan was impleaded, asserting that his family had traditionally made the festival idols and that the orders would affect him.

Source reference: p. 2; para. 2

The respondents stated that the idols were required to be made at Devarappanpatti under an agreement, while Ganesan’s counsel maintained that they had been made there and were then located in that village.

Source reference: p. 2; para. 3

The Court noted that the customary-practices document entrusted the idol-making task to Ganesan’s ancestors, and that the idol made by Mani had not been placed at the Sadaiyandi Kovil Thinnai.

Source reference: p. 3; para. 4
02

Issues

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction permitting the Mudhal Poojai to be conducted in the manner and at the place sought, having regard to the customary arrangements for the festival.

Source reference: pp. 1–3; paras. 1, 3–5

Whether directions were required concerning placement of the festival idol and maintenance of law and order.

Source reference: p. 3; para. 5
03

Law Applied

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to issue writs and directions.

Source reference: p. 1

The Court also considered the customary practices recorded in a document concerning the festival and the associated arrangement for making the idols.

Source reference: p. 3; para. 4

No specific statutory provision, precedent, or further legal test was cited in the order.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court considered the competing accounts about where the idols were made, but treated the recorded customary practice—under which Ganesan’s ancestors were entrusted with making the idols—as material to resolving the immediate festival arrangements.

Source reference: pp. 2–3; paras. 3–4

In light of that practice and the fact that the relevant idol had not been placed at the Sadaiyandi Kovil Thinnai, the Court directed that the idol made by Ganesan be placed there before being taken to the temple.

Source reference: p. 3; para. 5

It did not separately order that the Mudhal Poojai be conducted at a different location.

Source reference: p. 3; para. 5
05

Holding

The writ petition was disposed of with directions that Ganesan’s idol for Arulmigu Periya Muthaalamman Temple be placed at the Sadaiyandi Kovil Thinnai and thereafter taken to the temple, and that the respondents coordinate with the jurisdictional police to take necessary measures to maintain law and order during the annual festival.

No order as to costs was made.

Source reference: p. 3; para. 5
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

SasikumarvsThe Commissioner

Madras High Court · October 14, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment