The Madras High Court on Tuesday raised serious concerns over renovation and crowd-management works at the historic Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple in Kancheepuram [Krishna Devaraya Vs State of Tamil Nadu].

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy emphasised that conservation of heritage must take precedence over convenience and warned temple authorities that they would be accountable if any part of the temple’s heritage is damaged.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a man claiming to be a descendant of Vijayanagara emperor Sri Krishnadevaraya.

The petitioner moved the Court challenging the construction of ramps, pedestrian bridges and other alterations, arguing that they violate temple Agamas, heritage law, and statutory approvals.

The Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple in Kancheepuram, dedicated to Lord Varadaraja Perumal, is one of the most significant Vaishnavite temples in South India.

The case before the High Court goes back to July 2025, when the Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed by the Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha challenging the proposed renovation works at the temple.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh had accepted assurances from temple authorities that no heritage structures, murals or deities would be disturbed, while declining to interfere.

A fresh petition was later filed by Krishna Devaraya, who claimed lineage to the Vijayanagara ruler. He alleged violation of Agama principles, heritage law and suppression of material facts in earlier proceedings.

In November 2025, Justice PB Balaji ordered status quo and halted further works, observing that the sanctity of the temple structure was in question and that structural alterations should not precede adjudication.

The matter is now being heard finally by Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy.

During yesterday's hearing, Justice Chakravarthy clarified that the Court is not inclined to halt temple works or Kumbhabhishekam (consecration rituals that are also performed during renovations) but said the primary aim must be preservation of heritage.

“The Court (has a duty) to ensure that none of the heritage is lost. You (temple authorities/ State) will be accountable if any of the heritage is lost. The pristine nature of the temple should not be tampered with," the judge said.

He expressed concern that the authorities appeared to be proceeding with a singular focus on crowd management. The Court emphasised that the priority must be heritage preservation over crowd management.

“The foremost intention is to conserve; thereafter, only this (other crowd management measures) is permissible," Justice Chakravarthy said.

The Court also suggested that the temple could implement a token system like in Tirupati if need be.

The Court expressed scepticism about the need for major structural changes for crowd control, noting the vast size of the temple complex.

Justice Chakravarthy remarked that the temple is an enormous structure capable of accommodating large numbers of devotees and suggested that time-slot booking, queue management and non-destructive methods could be explored instead of structural alterations.

"I don't think crowd management is a problem for this temple ... Thousands of people can sit and you can even feel the breeze inside the temple. It will be like a beach only. It's a huge structure," the judge noted.

The Court also made strong prima facie observations regarding possible damage to heritage elements such as murals and ancient granite flooring.

The judge remarked that removal of old granite and use of modern materials could irreversibly affect the structure, noting that modern workmanship cannot replicate ancient construction techniques.

The Court also said that effacing murals or spoiling historic granite flooring would not be permissible and sought explanations from temple authorities on these issues.

The hearing also saw questions raised about statutory approvals, including Heritage Commission consent, budget sanction and local authority clearances for the project.

The Court asked authorities to explain whether the works comply with earlier court directions and applicable law.

The matter is listed for further hearing on February 19.

Devaraya was represented by advocates SK Srinivasan and Susanna Prabhu.