The Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench has mandated the removal of a statue of the late Dravidian social reformer E.V. Ramasamy, widely known as Periyar, from the grounds of the Arulmigu Bramasirakandeeswarar Temple in Thanjavur District. In a decisive ruling, a division bench comprising Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan directed the District Collector of Thanjavur to ensure the statue is safely relocated to a suitable alternative site within four weeks. The court’s order follows the determination that the installation of the statue upon temple-owned land was carried out without any form of approval from the temple administration, the District Collector, or any other legally competent authority.

The writ petition, filed by a devotee identified as Rama. Ravikumar, had sought a directive for the immediate removal of the statue, citing specific recommendations previously issued by the Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE) Department. The legal challenge centered on the premise that the placement of a political or social reformist icon within the confines of a religious institution—specifically on land held in trust for the deity—violated established property management norms and religious regulations. The bench took note of the legal necessity to maintain the sanctity and administrative independence of temple properties, emphasizing that individuals and organizations cannot unilaterally occupy religious land without due process and official sanction.

Verification of Property Status and Jurisdiction

During the proceedings, the court relied heavily on a comprehensive status report submitted by the District Collector of Thanjavur. This report proved critical in establishing the legal nature of the terrain where the statue had been standing for several decades. It clarified that the land in question is unequivocally registered as temple property and does not fall under the category of government-owned 'poramboke' land. This distinction provided the necessary legal footing for the High Court to intervene, as the land is subject to the stringent regulations governing the administration of religious endowments under the jurisdiction of the HR and CE Department.

The court’s directive was clear and prescriptive. Observing the lack of requisite permissions, the bench stated, "Since the statue is installed in the temple land without obtaining permission either from the temple authority or from the District Collector or from any other competent authority, the 4th respondent / District Collector is directed to remove the said statue safely from the temple land and also place it in some other suitable place within a period of four weeks from today and file a report." By placing the responsibility for the removal directly on the District Collector, the High Court has ensured that the process is handled by a neutral executive authority rather than leaving it to potentially contentious local entities.

The division bench also addressed the concerns regarding the logistics of the removal, emphasizing that the relocation must be handled with care. The order stipulates that the statue must be moved to another "suitable place," a directive intended to balance the historical and cultural significance of the reformer’s statue with the immediate requirement to restore the temple’s property rights.

Oversight and Future Compliance

To ensure the effective execution of its directive, the Madras High Court has mandated that the district administration file a compliance report after the four-week period expires. The court registry has been instructed to list the matter again after this timeframe to verify that the relocation has been completed. This oversight mechanism prevents the matter from remaining in legal limbo and compels the concerned government officials to prioritize the resolution of the encroachment.

The case highlights the broader tensions regarding the use of public spaces and religious land for the installation of monuments dedicated to political figures. The court’s position reaffirms that regardless of the stature or historical importance of the individual depicted, the procedural requirement for land use authorization remains paramount. By ruling in favor of the property rights associated with the Arulmigu Bramasirakandeeswarar Temple, the court has reinforced the principle that religious institutions are governed by specific statutes that prioritize their administrative integrity over private or group initiatives to occupy land for public memorials.

The Broader Legal Implications

The decision serves as a significant precedent for the HR and CE Department in managing temple properties across Tamil Nadu. Often, religious land becomes the subject of various claims and unauthorized occupation, which can complicate the administration of daily temple functions and long-term maintenance projects. The High Court's firm stance underscores the government's obligation to protect such properties from encroachments, even when the items placed on those properties carry significant social or political weight.

For the petitioner, the court’s decision marks a successful conclusion to his request, which had been supported by the internal recommendations of the HR and CE Department’s Joint Commissioner. The closure of the associated miscellaneous petition, WMP(MD) No. 19642 of 2026, alongside the main writ petition, signals that the judiciary considers the matter resolved through the specific directive for relocation. As the clock begins to tick on the four-week mandate, the focus now shifts to the district administration in Thanjavur, which must identify an appropriate public space that respects both the legal requirements laid out by the High Court and the public standing of the reformist leader.

The case remains a notable example of the judiciary’s role in balancing property management within the complex landscape of religious and public space in India, reaffirming that formal authorization is the fundamental prerequisite for any permanent structure on land held by religious endowments. The matter is now set to return to the bench in late November 2026 to confirm that the directives have been fully implemented by the state authorities.