Religious Sentiment Cannot Justify Encroachment on Public Property: Madras High Court Mandates Removal of Illegal Shrine - 2026-01-22

Sacred Grounds or Public Streets? Madras HC Settles the Debate on Roadside Encroachments

In a definitive ruling that reinforces the primacy of public space over unauthorized religious structures, the Madras High Court has ordered the Corporation of Greater Chennai to clear a shrine built on a public pathway. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, presiding over the matter, emphasized that the fundamental right to practice religion does not grant immunity for the occupation of public land.

A Disputed Entrance

The case originated from a property dispute in Thiru.Vi.Ka.Nagar, Chennai. The petitioner, A. Sarath, purchased a property in November 2024, expecting that a temporary structure near his entrance would be cleared. Instead, he discovered a permanent shrine of Mother Velankanni installed at the site, complete with an amplifier and an illegal electricity connection drawn from across the street. When local authorities failed to act on his formal complaint, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus from the High Court.

The Arguments: Faith vs. Law

The proceedings were further complicated by the impleading of one Mr. Daniel, who claimed to have established the shrine in 1995. Daniel argued that the shrine serves as a pillar of faith and communal harmony and that its removal would hurt the sentiments of local devotees. He further alleged that the petitioner was aware of the structure at the time of purchase and accused the petitioner of using the property for illegal activities.

On the other side, the petitioner and the Corporation presented clear documentary evidence. Official inspections and “Town Survey Land Record (TSLR)” data confirmed that the shrine was built squarely on Sarkar Poramboke land—classified as a public road.

Legal Analysis: The Limits of Article 25

Justice Lakshminarayanan dismantled the defense of "religious sentiment," citing established precedents from the Supreme Court and other High Courts. The court reiterated that the fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution does not extend to the unauthorized occupation of public footpaths.

"The right to construct an unauthorised temple, that too on a footpath, cannot be said to be an essential part of any religion," the Court noted, aligning itself with the principle that a street has no religious character and must remain free for public use.

Key Observations

• "The fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India does not extend to offering worship or prayer at each and every place."
• "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."
• "A road or a street does not have any religious character. Irrespective of the nature of the superstructure... in case, it is an encroachment on a street... the Commissioner is statutorily required to remove the same."

The Final Verdict: Restoration of Public Space

The High Court has directed the Corporation to exercise its statutory duty under ** Section 128 (1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act**. The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central) has been tasked with ensuring the removal of the structure by February 10, 2026.

While the Court acknowledged Daniel's emotional connection to the shrine, it balanced this against the rule of law, ultimately opting to protect the integrity of public thoroughfares. This judgment serves as a stern reminder that administrative bodies are legally bound to prevent encroachments, regardless of the nature—religious or otherwise—of the structure involved.