Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41798

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Vijayakumar, J
G. Vadivel – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police – Respondent
W.M.P.Crl.(MD) No.691 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Balakumar.G.R
For the Respondents: A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad

The denial of permission for public religious festivals due to past criminal records can be reconsidered if the disputing parties reach a settlement and provide a formal undertaking to ensure law and order.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of permission to conduct an annual temple festival due to pending criminal cases, including a murder case linked to the temple disputes. The petitioner argued that the dispute was localized between two families who had since reached a compromise. The court determined that as the parties had settled their differences, the matter could be resolved by having the villagers provide a joint undertaking to ensure peace. The issues framed involved whether the police were justified in banning a public religious event due to prior inter-family disputes and whether a settlement between the parties could restore the eligibility for conducting the festival. The ratio decidendi established that pending criminal investigations do not create a permanent bar to religious freedom if law and order concerns can be addressed through a formal undertaking to maintain the peace. Accordingly, the court directed the villagers to provide a joint statement to the police, granting the police discretion to reconsider the impugned order based on such assurance.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts regarding the denial of festival permission based on pending criminal cases. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contentions of parties regarding the resolution of private disputes and impact on festival conduct. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court directive for an undertaking as a condition to reconsider the permit rejection. (Para 6)

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the 3^rd respondent, wherein the request of the petitioner to conduct the annual temple festival of Arulmigu Maha Mariamman Temple at Kodiyalam Village has been rejected.

2. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that at least two criminal cases touching upon the temple festival are pending, out of which one is a murder case. A detailed order has been passed by the third respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner to conduct the temple festival.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the dispute is only between two families and it cannot affect the rights of the other members of the village in conducting the temple festival. He further submits that the families have entered into a compromise and therefore, there will not be any law and order problem this year.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that in view of the murder cases, they had taken a decision not to permit the temple function.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that a settlement has been reached between both the families and the other villagers are ready to appear before the 3^rd respondent and give a joint statement with regard to conducting the temple festival in a peaceful manner.

6. In view of the above facts, the petitioner and the other members of the village are directed to appear before the 3^rd respondent Police and, if they are willing, they may give a joint statement to the effect that they would conduct the temple festival in a peaceful manner. In case the third respondent is satisfied, he may recall his order dated 12.05.2026 and pass a fresh order permitting the petitioner and the other members to proceed with the temple function.

7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41798

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASR. Vijayakumar, JG. Vadivel – AppellantVersusSuperintendent of Police – RespondentW.M.P.Crl.(MD) No.691 of 2026

The denial of permission for public religious festivals due to past criminal records can be reconsidered if the disputing parties reach a settlement and provide a formal undertaking to ensure law and order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Vijayakumar, J
G. Vadivel – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police – Respondent
W.M.P.Crl.(MD) No.691 of 2026