Madras HC: Religious Food Offering a Fundamental Right; Public Land Must Be Shared

CHENNAI – In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of religious freedom and equality, the Madras High Court has held that the right to conduct 'Annadhanam' (the religious practice of offering food) is protected as a fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution. Justice GR Swaminathan further declared that public land available for general use cannot be denied to one community solely on religious grounds, as such exclusion would be a direct violation of Article 15.

The court delivered this verdict while addressing a writ petition filed by K. Rajamani, who was denied permission to hold an Annadhanam event in a public ground near the Kaliyamman Temple. The authorities had rejected his request, citing potential law and order problems, and offered an alternative site on a public road.

The judgment strongly rebuked the local administration and police for choosing what it termed the "easy option of stifling fundamental rights" instead of fulfilling their duty to uphold them and manage any resultant law and order situations.

---

The Factual Matrix: A Dispute Over Public Ground

The case revolved around a piece of public land classified as a vacant site or 'grama natham', belonging to the local Panchayat. This ground, situated near the Kaliyamman Temple, had a stage on one side which, according to submissions, has been used by the local Christian community for Easter festival programs for over a century.

The petitioner, a Hindu, sought permission to conduct Annadhanam on the open portion of this ground during a temple festival. The police, however, rejected the application, citing objections from the Christian community and the potential for communal friction. The village has a demographic composition of approximately 2,500 Christian families and 400 Hindu families.

The respondents, representing the Christian community, argued that Hindus had never been permitted to use the ground for religious purposes. They cited a 2017 peace committee resolution which purportedly restricted the ground's use to functions that had been traditionally permitted for the past 100 years.

Upholding Fundamental Rights Over Administrative Convenience

Justice Swaminathan dismantled the arguments presented by the state and the objectors, focusing on the core constitutional principles at stake. The court unequivocally stated that administrative convenience or the mere apprehension of a law and order issue cannot be grounds to curtail a citizen's fundamental rights.

In a key observation, the court held, “The right to hold Annadhanam can even be brought within the scope of one's fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. When it comes to upholding fundamental rights, it is the duty of the local administration to stand in aid of the same. If any law and order problem arises, the same must be dealt with appropriately. The police should not choose the easy option of stifling the fundamental rights.”

This directive serves as a crucial reminder to law enforcement agencies that their primary role is to facilitate the exercise of constitutional rights, not to preemptively restrict them based on perceived threats from dissenting groups. The judgment implicitly criticizes a common administrative tendency to maintain "peace" by suppressing rights rather than by managing dissent and protecting the rights-holder.

The Principle of Non-Discrimination on Public Land

The court then turned to the equally vital issue of access to public property. It firmly rejected the notion that historical use by one community could transform public land into an exclusive preserve.

“I hold that if a public ground belonging to the State is available for use of the general public, a particular section cannot be excluded from using the same. If the sole ground of exclusion is religion, it certainly would offend Article 15 of the Constitution of India,” the court observed.

Justice Swaminathan articulated a clear and simple standard for the use of such spaces: “A public ground should be available for the use of all communities or none.”

He pointedly addressed the imbalance in the respondents' argument, stating, “I cannot accept the submission that while Christians can use the ground on Easter but Hindus cannot conduct Annadhanam in the very same place.” The court clarified that its ruling did not imply a free-for-all. It judiciously added that during specific, traditionally established events like Easter celebrations, the Christian community should have priority, and conflicting requests from other groups for the same time and place should be denied. This ensures that traditional practices are respected without granting exclusive, year-round ownership over public resources.

A Call for Inter-Religious Harmony

Lamenting the nature of the dispute, Justice Swaminathan described it as a “very sorry state of affairs.” He took the opportunity to make a broader, impassioned plea for inter-religious harmony and cultural exchange, which he argued are essential for societal peace.

“In every religious event, there must be participation from the other religionists also... I remember an occasion when a Muslim friend prepared only vegetarian Nonbu Kanji so that I can have the same. Needless to say, I relished it. Such is the beauty of our culture. Such interactions alone will ensure inter-religious harmony,” the judge remarked.

This portion of the judgment elevates the ruling from a mere legal adjudication to a socio-legal commentary on the importance of India’s pluralistic fabric and the need to actively practice, not just preach, communal unity.

Conclusion and Directions

The Madras High Court quashed the rejection order and directed the Tahsildar to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct the Annadhanam in the specified public ground. The court stipulated that the petitioner must ensure the ground is returned in its original condition after the event.

This judgment is poised to become a significant precedent in disputes concerning the use of public spaces for religious and cultural activities. It robustly defends the sanctity of Articles 15 and 25, places a firm obligation on the state to protect these rights proactively, and champions the principle that public property must remain a shared resource, accessible to all citizens irrespective of their faith.

---

Case: K Rajamani v. The Joint Commissioner and Others (W.P(MD)No.30834 of 2025)

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. Manikandan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader; Mr. M. Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader; Mr. A. Albert James, Government Advocate (crl.side); Mr.A.John Vincent