Can't Rule Out Mala Fide Intentions: Madras High Court Stays Proposed Church Construction Near Mariyamman Temple

The Bench observed that Coimbatore was a communally sensitive city which had witnessed bomb blasts and religious riots in the past. It noted that the proposed church would come up “within a stone’s throw” of the existing Temple and held that if a large church was constructed in such close proximity, “mala fide intentions cannot be ruled out”. However, the Court clarified that religious rights must be protected once established and that the State must balance such rights with public order and religious harmony.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan while hearing a writ petition challenging communications issued by the Coimbatore District Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer granting police protection for construction of a church at Kalapatti, Coimbatore, observed, “…Coimbatore is a communally sensitive city. It witnessed bomb blasts and bloody religious riots. The proposed church would come up within a stone’s throw from the existing Mariyamman Temple. There are only a handful of Christian families. If a large church is proposed to be constructed in the vicinity of the Mariyamman Temple, mala fide intentions cannot be ruled out. The counsel for the petitioner hints at the possibility of the new building being a centre of conversion activity. We are a secular nation. We are a pluralist society. Religious amity has to be preserved. If a religious right is established, then, it is the duty of the State to aid in its enforcement”.

Advocate E. Ashok Kumar appeared for the petitioner and L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.

The dispute concerned Survey No.155/2, where the proposed church was to come up near a Mariyamman Temple which, according to the petitioner, had existed for more than 100 years. The petitioner argued that the revenue records classified the land as a road and that the permission granted for construction had failed to consider objections from residents.

The Court noted that the revenue records indicated that the survey number was a road and observed that a private party could not claim title over the land merely because permission had earlier been granted. It held that where the land status itself was disputed, title would have to be established through appropriate proceedings.

While referring to a Karnataka High Court judgment in Sanathana Kalakshetra v. BBMP WP No.46839 of 2019 dated July 14, 2020, the Bench noted, “…there is no right to construct temples on a foot path and that this cannot be considered as an essential part of any religion or religious practice which can be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The revenue record indicates that Survey No.155/2 is a road. The order granting permission to put up a church has not taken note of this aspect. When Hindus constitute an overwhelming and they vigorously oppose the construction of a church in the immediate vicinity of the temple, then, the authority must not casually brush the objection aside”.

The Bench also held that the requirement of obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the District Collector for religious structures under the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 cannot be treated as a mechanical formality, particularly where there is strong opposition.

Considering the pending civil suit filed by members of the Hindu community challenging the earlier permission granted for construction, the Court held that the status quo must continue until adjudication of the suit and granted an interim injunction against the construction.

Cause Title: Balasubramaniyam N v. The Collector & Ors. WP No. 20267 of 2026

Appearances:

Petitioner: M/s.D.Baskar, E. Ashok Kumar, K.B. Rohitih, Pooja J, B.Sankara Narayanan, Advocates.

Respondents: . L.S.M. Hasan Fizal Addl. Govt. Pleader, R. Muniyapparaj, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Order