Letter to Chief Minister’s Cell, PIL cannot be substitute for criminal complaint: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that merely sending a letter to the Chief Minister’s Cell, and thereafter filing a public interest litigation (PIL) cannot substitute the procedure prescribed by law for pursuing a criminal complaint [Raja SM Vs State].

A Division Bench of Justices CV Karthikeyan and R Sakthivel made the observation while dismissing a PIL seeking a CBI probe into the alleged disappearance of two idols from the Arulmighu Kalatheeswarar Abirami Temple, also known as the Abirami Amman Temple, in Dindigul.

The Court held that the petitioner is free to pursue a properly filed criminal complaint in the matter. It underscored that a person alleging an offence must first lodge a proper complaint before the appropriate investigating agency. If no action is taken, the complainant can thereafter approach the jurisdictional Magistrate or the competent court for further relief under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

A letter to the Chief Minister or a PIL cannot substitute this process, the Court held.

“The procedure known to law has to be followed by the petitioner and by everybody else ... 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,” the Court's September 8 order stated.

The petitioner had approached the High Court alleging that two idols, the Karudalvar idol and Bala Durgai Amman idol, which were attached to pillars at the temple, had gone missing. Photographs of the idols were also placed before the Court.

The petitioner sought to quash a January 22, 2026 communication issued by the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) of the Idol Smuggling Prevention Division.

He also sought the transfer of a representation he sent to the ADGP on the matter. He called for this complaint to be sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a proper investigation.

The Court, however, noted that the petitioner had first sent the representation to the Chief Minister’s Cell, which was subsequently forwarded to the Idol Smuggling Prevention Division's ADGP. It proceeded to suggest that the petitioner file a proper criminal complaint with the appropriate authority.

During the hearing, the State also informed the Court that the two idols were actually still available in the temple but were not being worshipped because they had been damaged.

The Bench recorded this submission while dismissing the petition. It nevertheless granted the petitioner liberty to follow the procedure established by law. The Court clarified that its observations should not influence either the investigating agency or any court dealing with a future complaint.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate K Gokul.

Government Pleader M P Senthil, appearing for Government Advocate D Venkatesh, represented the first respondent. Advocate N Mohideen Basha appeared for the CBI.

[Read Judgment]