2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 32135
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. Victoria Gowri, J
V. Murugan – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.2271 of 2025|W.M.P.(MD)No.531 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. Prasanna Vinoth
For the Respondents: M. Muthumanickkam, S.S. Manoj
A person cannot be excommunicated from participating in a public temple festival or contributing to its funds based on inter-community marriage.
Headnote:The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to take action against a respondent for excommunicating the petitioner and his family from a public temple festival. The petitioner alleged that the temple was constructed using funds from all villagers and that the village head refused to accept contributions and hindered participation because the petitioner had married a woman from another community. The court examined whether a person could be denied participation in a public temple festival based on social grounds. The court noted that the temple belonged to the general public and was funded by the community, and while the immediate dispute was reported as settled amicably through police intervention, the right to participate must be protected. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegation of excommunication from a public temple festival due to inter-community marriage. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. amicable settlement of immediate disputes through administrative intervention. (Para 4) |
| 3. prohibition of future excommunication from public temple festivals and contributions. (Para 5) |
##PAGE1##
W.P.Crl.(MD) No.2271 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.2271 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.531 of 2025
V.Murugan .... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
District Collectorate,
Karur District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Kulithalai,
Karur District.
3.The Tahsildhar,
Kadavoor Taluk,
Karur District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Thogaimalai Police Station,
Karur District.
5.Kanniyappan ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2026 01:03:49 pm )
##PAGE2##W.P.Crl.(MD) No.2271 of 2025
4 to take action against the 5th respondent for excommunicate the
petitioner and his family members for worshipping the temple festival
of Sri Arulmigu Bhagavathy Amman, Sri Murugan and Sri Vinayagar
temple, Komalipatti, Pannapatti Village, Kadavoor Taluk, Karur
District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 27.10.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr. B.Prasanna Vinoth
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.M.Muthumanickkam
Government Advocate (Civil)
For R-4 : Mr.S.S.Manoj
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
Seeking to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take action against
the 5th respondent for excommunicating the petitioner and his family
members from worshipping in the temple festival of Sri Arulmigu
Bhagavathy Amman, Sri Murugan and Sri Vinayagar temple,
Komalipatti, Pannapatti Village, Kadavoor Taluk, Karur District,
based on the petitioner's representation dated 27.10.2025, this writ
petition is filed.
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2026 01:03:49 pm )
##PAGE3##W.P.Crl.(MD) No.2271 of 2025
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on
several occasions the temple festivals were conducted since the
temple belonged to the general public and the same was also
constructed by the funds of all the villagers, and the consecration of
the temple was also conducted by the funds collected from all the
villagers. The fund collected from the villagers for the temple is
known as Thalaikattuvari. However, when the temple festival was
announced on 01.12.2025, in terms of the common decision of the
villagers, the respondent No.5, who is the village Nattamai, blatantly
refused to receive Thalaikattuvari from the petitioner and also
hindered the petitioner's and his family's participation in the temple
festival, excommunicating him for the sole reason that the petitioner
had married a woman from another community.
3. On 24.10.2025, when the petitioner had paid
Thalaikattuvari of Rs.15,000/-, the 5th respondent had refused to
receive the same and had also entered in a verbal altercation with
the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner had made a representation to
the respondents 1 to 4 in this regard. However, the same was not
considered. In the meanwhile, the temple festival is also over.
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2026 01:03:49 pm )
##PAGE4##W.P.Crl.(MD) No.2271 of 2025
4. The learned Government Advocate Mr.S.S.Manoj submitted
that all the indifferences were resolved by the interference of the 4th
respondent police and the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent,
and all the villagers amicably settled their disputes and have
conducted the function on 01.12.2025 without any permissions.
5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully
perused the materials available on record.
6. It is made clear that even in the future, by all means, the 5th
respondent should not excommunicate the petitioner and his family
from participating in or giving Thalaikattuvari to the temp