Justice B. Pugalendhi, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
Madras High Court Modifies Police Restrictions On Murugan Devotees’ Conference; Directs Organisers To Ensure Communal Harmony
|The Court said that the right to hold religious events is protected under Article 25, but restrictions imposed by the police must not be arbitrary, excessive, or unrelated to maintaining public order and communal harmony.
The Madras High Court has held that conditions imposed by the police on the Murugan Devotees’ Conference to be held on 22 June 2025 must be balanced with the constitutional right to profess and practice religion freely, and cannot be arbitrary, irrelevant, or mechanically imposed.
A Single Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi observed, “Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees every person a right to freely profess, practice and propagate their religion. Therefore, any individual or organisation has the liberty to hold the function based on the religious faith. However this right is not absolute. There can be restrictions, if it is intended to affect the communal harmony. Our country is a diverse society having people of different faiths. The exercise of religious freedom must be harmonised with broader objective maintaining public order, morality and communal harmony.”
The Court added, “The requirement of the police permission for conducting the event is to ensure that there are no Law-and-order issues for the event and that the speakers if any to be installed must be well within the ambit of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000.”
Senior Advocate G. Karthikeyan appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General R. Baskaran represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner organisation proposed to conduct a spiritual conference titled Muruga Bakthargalin Aanmeega Maanadu on June 22, 2025, from 3:00 PM to 8:00 PM at Amma Thidal, Madurai. In preparation for the event, the Petitioner intended to install temporary miniatures of the six abodes of Lord Murugan (Aarupadai Veedu) from June 10 to June 22, and conduct poojas twice daily, from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM and 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM, along with the distribution of prasadam.
Permission was obtained from the private landowner, and an application was made to the police. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, rejected the request citing multiple grounds as: the main application for the June 22 event was still pending; separate permission had not been obtained from the HR&CE Department or the Corporation; and the proposed poojas near residential areas and schools could lead to noise, traffic, and law and order concerns.
The Court had, in an earlier hearing, directed the police to decide on the main event permission. 12 June 12, 2025, permission was granted for the conference with 52 conditions. The petitioner challenged six of those conditions as being impractical, arbitrary or irrelevant, including those requiring vehicle passes to be obtained from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, restriction on two-wheelers, citation of inapplicable legal provisions (Sections 34 of the HR&CE Act and 431 of the Municipal Corporation Act), and a complete ban on drone usage.
Intervenors also filed objections, citing agamic violations, unauthorised replication of temple structures, political misuse of religion, and prior public statements made by political figures associated with the organising body. The State supported these objections and raised law and order concerns.
Reasoning of the Court
On the issue of permission from the HR&CE Department and Corporation, the Court observed, “The petitioner has enclosed the permission of the landlord. The landlord has permitted the petitioner organisation to conduct the event. The respondent police have not pointed out any relevant provisions, which require any formal permission from the Corporation for installing these miniatures in the venue.”
Regarding objections based on violation of agamic principles, the Court noted, “Though the impleading petitioner has pointed that the installation of miniatures is in violation of agama, he has not substantiated the same with any materials before this Court.”
The Court observed that the conditions invoking Sections 34 of the HR&CE Act and 431 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act were irrelevant. “Section 34 of Tamil Nadu HR & CE Department Act 1959, is pertaining to alienation of immovable property… Similarly condition No.46 is for permission of the Corporation authorities under Section 431… which is also not relevant to the issue”, it added.
The Court further observed Condition No. 44 requiring participant details was deemed excessive, and stated, “The police are going to issue vehicle passes and therefore, they will be having an idea about the persons and the number of vehicles, likely to participate in the conference. There is no need to furnish separate details by the organisers.”
On drone usage, the Court modified the condition to permit limited use, and observed, “This Court modifies the condition No.49 by permitting the petitioner organisation to use two drones for covering the events.”
The Court noted concerns about noise and traffic, and directed, “The petitioner organisation has to maintain the regulations as provided under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. This is also addressed by the respondent police in its order, dated 12.06.2025, by fixing decibel limit in condition No.23 and the same needs to be strictly complied with.”
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, where it had been held it was imperative that if any individual or group of persons, by their action or caustic and inflammatory speech are bent upon sowing seed of mutual hatred, and their proposed activities are likely to create disharmony and disturb equilibrium, sacrificing public peace and tranquility, strong action, and more so preventive actions are essentially and vitally needed to be taken.
However, in the present case, the Court found no such incitement or threat evident in the materials placed before it.
The Bench observed, “The petitioner is organising this event as a religious conference for the devotees of Lord Murugan and for the well-being of the universe. With that being the object, the organisers of the event must strictly comply with the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court… and ensure that communal harmony is maintained.”
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and modified the contested conditions accordingly.
Cause Title: Hindu Munnani, Madurai v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (W.P. Crl. (MD) Nos. 110 and 185 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate G. Karthikeyan; Advocate Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy
Respondents: Additional Advocate General R. Baskaran; Additional Public Prosecutor E. Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Intervenors: Senior Advocate T. Lajapathiy Roy; Advocate S. Vanchinathan