The main legal point established is that the relocation of a temple for public construction does not necessarily infringe on fundamental rights under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, especially when the deity's status as a Swayambu Lingam is not proven.

N. Kirubakaran, J.

These writ petitions raise a point with regard to Swayambu lingam (Manifestation of Lord Shiva swaroopam) whether the Swaymabu lingam can be replaced in a different place rather than from the present place. It is stated that man is a creation of God and it is also being said that God is made by man. The faith of God, the scientist say is embedded in the genes of the men.

2. As the matter relates to faith in religion and also with regard to Swayambu Linga (Manisfestation of Lord Shiva by himself), without giving any personal opinion, the Court is constrained to consider the issue as it was called upon to do so legally.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:

Both W.P.Nos.30779 of 2008 and 2670 of 2009 are public interest litigations praying for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from removing, demolishing Istalingeswarar temple in the existing place inside the Government Estate, Chennai 600 002. Both petitioners (hereinafter referred as petitioner) stated in their writ petitions that "Swaymbu lingam" ( Manifestation of Lord Shiva swaroopam) was identified in the year 1600 in the lands which is now known as Government Estate, Chennai-600 002.

4. It is also alleged that only in the year 1968, the priest Kuppusamy Gurukkal performed pooja to the presiding deity, Istalingeswarar requesting the then Government to construct a compound wall around the temple in the year 1968 and the same was approved by the Government and the temple was renovated. At that time, an Aavudyaar i.e., Pedastal was built around the "Baanam" (Swayambu Lingam) and a Kumbabishekam was performed. After the life time of the priest Kuppusamy Gurukkal , the respondents 4 to 6 were appointed as hereditary Trustees by the second respondent (secretary to H.R and C.E department) by virtue of the order passed in O.A.No.3/2000 on 05.06.2002.

5. It is also averred by the petitioner in the reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 that the inscription of 1932 in a stone embedded in the temple says that Venkatasamy Naidu of Kottur village has donated some contributions to the Istalingeswarar. She also quoted a poem from Thirumandiram which was composed by saint Thirumoolar who lived nearly 1800-1900 years ago. The second Thandhiram in poem 515: under the caption "Thiru Koizhil Zhivu" speaks about consequences of damaging the holy temple and damages of transplanting lingam. Based on that, the petitioner contended that it is a "Swaymbu lingam" (Manifestation of Lord Shiva swaroopam by himself) and not man made and that it cannot be removed, relocated and if it is done it would amount to infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner apprehended that the lingam would be replaced on account of the respondent/Governments effort to construct a new building of the New Legislative Assembly Complex.

6. The state Government filed their counter stating that the Government decided to construct a State of Art new Assembly complex for Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly at Omandurar, Government Estate, Chennai-2 vide G.O.Ms.No.209 Public Works Department dated 04.07.2007. It had already approved the plan for construction for new Assembly complex and the temple lies within the area demarcated for the third circle of the New Legislative Assembly Complex. The temple around Ganesa naturally formed in the banyan tree "Alaramara Iyarkai Vinayakar Temple" has already been relocated in another area near Omandurar Government Estate as per G.O.Ms.No.330 Public Works Department dated 111. 2008 leaving the Banyan tree as the tree does not lie within the area demarcated for the construction of New Assembly Complex. As per the Government Order, the H.R and C.E department shifted the idols around the Banyan tree to the newly allotted area in the Government Estate complex. Hence, Lord Istalingeswarar temple has to be treated on par with "Alaramara Iyarkai Vinayakar Temple".

7. It