The Madras High Court recently expressed dismay over the wilful disobedience of its earlier directions to remove encroachments from over 500 acres of land belonging to a temple in Karur district, remarking that the temple's deity cannot be left remediless merely because it lacked voting rights [A Radhakrishnan Vs P Madhusudhan Reddy].

A Bench of Justices P Velmurugan and B Pugalendhi made the observation while dealing with a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a 2019 order directing authorities to remove encroachments over lands belonging to Arulmigu Balasubramaniaswamy Temple at Vennimalai in Karur district.

"The present case stands as yet another example where lands standing in the name of a deity in revenue records are allowed to remain under encroachment for years together, while administrative responses oscillate between delay and justification," the Court noted in its February 27 ruling.

The Bench added that a temple deity, recognised as a juristic person in law, cannot be left remediless merely because it does not participate in elections.

"The poor deity has no voting right. On the other hand, the mighty encroachers have valuable votes. In a democratic polity, electoral arithmetic sometimes appears to influence administrative resolve. But constitutional governance is not subordinate to electoral expediency. A deity, recognised as a juristic person in law, cannot be left remediless because it does not participate in elections. The deity may not vote, but the Constitution speaks," the Court said.

The Arulmigu Balasubramaniaswamy Temple at Vennimalai, located near Karur in Tamil Nadu, is an ancient hill temple dedicated to Lord Murugan (Subramanya). The temple is believed to be over 1,000 years old and is closely associated with the Kongu region’s medieval religious and cultural history.

The contempt petition was filed by a temple devotee, A Radhakrishnan, alleging that authorities had failed to implement directions issued by the High Court in 2019 on a writ petition seeking the removal of encroachments from temple lands.

In that judgment, the Court had issued category-wise directions requiring the temple administration to initiate eviction proceedings under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and to file civil suits where pattas had been issued to individuals.

However, nearly six years later, compliance remained incomplete.

“Files moved. Reports were filed. Meetings were convened. Monitoring committees were constituted. Yet, fact remains, most of the lands remain under encroachment,” the Court observed.

According to status reports placed before the Court, 507.88 acres of temple land were under encroachment, while only 93.64 acres had been recovered so far.

Officials informed the Court that eviction attempts were stalled due to protests and law-and-order concerns.

Police reports indicated that eviction drives undertaken in November 2025 were disrupted by protests involving political leaders and others, with cases being registered after attempts at self-immolation and road blockades.

Rejecting such explanations, the Court said:

“The majesty of law cannot be made contingent upon crowd approval.”

The Court also noted that among the encroachers were government officers, industrialists and persons wielding considerable influence, raising concerns about the reluctance on the part of authorities to enforce the Court’s earlier directions.

The Bench noted that review petitions filed by certain encroachers had already been dismissed and that Special Leave Petitions filed before the Supreme Court were also rejected in November 2025.

“After dismissal of the Review Applications and Special Leave Petitions, there remained absolutely no legal cloud. Continued inaction thereafter constitutes wilful and deliberate disobedience,” the Court held.

Despite finding that wilful contempt had been established, the Court refrained from imposing punishment.

“Contempt jurisdiction exists to secure compliance and uphold the authority of law. Punishment is a means, not an end. Here, the true sufferer is not the Court but the Temple,” the Bench observed.

The Court reasoned that convicting individual officers would not by itself restore the temple lands and that the priority should be ensuring recovery of the properties.

The Bench proceeded to close the contempt petition for the present with several directions.

Civil courts dealing with suits relating to the temple lands were asked to endeavour to dispose of them preferably within six months. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department was directed to file quarterly status reports before the Court detailing progress in the recovery of the encroached lands.

The Superintendent of Police, Karur, was directed to ensure adequate protection to officials implementing eviction proceedings and to deal strictly with any obstruction.

The Court also directed the Registrar of Societies to examine the activities of organisations allegedly mobilising protests against the eviction process.

On a parting note, the Court underscored that it expects these directions to be scrupulously complied with.

"The officials are reminded that compliance with judicial orders is not optional. The authority of the Court does not depend upon executive convenience. The State machinery is expected to act with firmness and constitutional fidelity," the Court said.

The petitioner, A Radhakrishnan, appeared party-in-person

Senior Counsel NR Elango, Government Advocate N Ramesh Arumugam, Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan, Special Government Pleader Subburaj, Additional Public Prosecutor T Senthilkumar, and Advocates R Baranidharan, and K Govindarajan, represented various local authorities in Karur.

Senior Advocate AK Sriram, and Advocates Athimoolapandan, V Chandrasekar, CK Chandrasekar and P Athimoolapandan represented various temple executive officers.

[Read Order]