Justice C.V. Karthikeyan, Justice R. Sakthivel, Madras HC (Madurai Bench)

The Madras High Court has observed that merely submitting a representation to the Chief Minister's Special Cell and subsequently filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cannot replace statutory procedure under the law.

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking an investigation into two allegedly missing idols from the Arulmighu Kalatheeswarar Abirami Temple in Dindigul, observing that persons must first file a police complaint and approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The Division Bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel observed, "Merely issuing a letter to the Chief Minister's Cell and then filing a public interest litigation would not advance the cause of the petitioner herein. We would grant liberty to the petitioner to follow the procedure as established by law with respect to the same issue in proper manner."

Advocate K Gokul appeared for the Petitioner, while Government Pleader MP Senthil appeared for the Respondents

A writ petition, as a public interest litigation, was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking records relating to an order passed by the Additional Director General of Police, Idol Smuggling Prevention Division Office at Chennai ("Respondent No.1") and to quash the same.

The main issue was related to the alleged missing idols in the Temple Arulmighu Kalatheeswarar Abirami Temple in Dindigul, also called Abirami Amman Temple. These idols are the Karudalvar Idol and the Bala Durgai Amman idol attached to the pillars.

The counsel for the Petitioner alleged that a necessary investigation should be conducted regarding the disappearance of the two idols. This complaint was reforwarded to the Chief Minister's Cell.  Thereafter, the same was reforwarded to Respondent No. 1. The same communication was impugned in the writ petition.

The Court observed, "The procedure known to law has to be followed by the petitioner and by everybody else. That requires a proper complaint to be lodged before the appropriate investigating agency and thereafter to approach the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court or the Court having jurisdiction to deal with that specific offence to seek further relief, in case no action had been taken on the complaint. The procedure as enunciated under the BNSS 2023 will have to be followed."

It was clarified that the above observation shall not interfere with the further proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Raja Sm Social Activist v. State and Anr. [Neutral Citation:2026:MHC:3723]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate K. Gokul

Respondents: Government Pleader M.P. Senthil, Advocates D. Venkatesh and N. Mohideen Basha

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: