Roads have no religious character: Madras High Court orders action against Christian shrine set up on pavement

The Madras High Court recently directed the Greater Chennai Corporation to expeditiously conclude its proceedings against a roadside shrine dedicated to Mother Velankanni, after finding that it was established on a public road [A Sarath Vs Commissioner].

Justice V Lakshminarayanan observed that every moment an illegal structure remains on a public street, it gives rise to a fresh cause of action.

The Court added that the municipal authorities are under a statutory duty to remove such encroachments under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act.

“A road or a street does not have any religious character. Irrespective of the nature of the superstructure, whether it is religious or irreligious, if it is an encroachment on a public place, the Commissioner is statutorily required to remove the same,” the bench said.

The order was passed on a petition filed by one A Sarath, who had purchased a residential property in November 2024. At the time of purchase, he was informed that a raised structure abutting the entrance was temporary.

Subsequently, a statue of Mother Mary was installed in the structure, along with a tall pillar fitted with an amplifier. An electricity connection was also drawn from a neighbouring house.

Claiming that the structure obstructed his house entrance and impeded pedestrian movement on the public pathway, the petitioner approached the Greater Chennai Corporation in September 2025. When no action followed, he moved the High Court seeking a mandamus to enforce his complaint.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the Greater Chennai Corporation inspected the site and concluded that the shrine was located on “Sarkar Poramboke” land classified as a public road, as reflected in the Town Survey Land Records.

The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central) issued a seven-day notice on January 19 to the alleged enroacher R Daniel, who claimed to have established and maintained the shrine since 1995.

Daniel told the Court that he and others had established the shrine in 1995 and that it existed peacefully for nearly three decades. He argued that the shrine has become “a place of faith, hope, and emotional strength” for local residents and that its removal could disturb communal harmony.

Rejecting his explanation, the Court held that long duration of illegality does not confer legality.

“The plea that the idol has been in existence for more than 30 years, is no defence at all,” it said.

The Court further observed that an encroachment on public road is always illegal.

“Every minute, nay, second that an illegal superstructure is on a public road or a street, it gives a fresh cause of action to the Commissioner to invoke his power under Section 128 of the Act,” the bench said.

Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed the authorities to proceed with their ongoing proceedings in full vigor and pass an appropriate order on or before February 10.

"The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central) shall wait for any response that might be given by Mr.Daniel to the notice issued under Section 128(1)(b) of the Act," it clarified.

The matter has been posted for compliance on February 11.

The petitioner was represented by advocate B Kaarvannan

Advocates C Ramesh and R Udaykumar represented the respondents.

Advocate S Baskar represented the private respondent.

[Read Judgment]