Madras HC stays construction of church near Coimbatore temple

Chennai: The Madras High Court on May 29 issued an interim order restraining construction of a church close to a century old Mariyamman temple in Kalapatti, Coimbatore, saying local authorities “must not casually brush” aside objections from the Hindu majority in the area.

A Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan passed the order in a writ petition filed by resident Balasubramaniyam N, who challenged police protection granted by the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer to the President of the CSI Christ King Church for the proposed work. The court noted that the proposed structure would be erected “within a stone’s throw” of the temple in a locality that, the petitioner said, has only a handful of Christian families.

Describing Coimbatore as “a communally sensitive city” with a history of communal violence and bomb blasts, the Bench observed that the project, coming so close to the temple and in an overwhelmingly Hindu neighbourhood, raised concerns that could not be ignored. The court also relied on revenue records indicating that the disputed site is a public road rather than land with clear private title, and noted a civil suit dating to 2010 over an earlier permission for construction at the location remains pending before the District Munsif Court in Coimbatore.

The petitioner’s counsel drew the court’s attention to the changed political climate and said recent public statements by political figures had heightened local sensitivities. The Bench stressed that its interim order should not be read as endorsing a majority veto in every case, saying that if rights are established or objections are unreasonable, the State must uphold lawful claims. The court said it acted because revenue records did not support the church’s title and because proceeding with construction risked social amity.

The order was issued while the matter is pending further hearing. Additional Government Pleader L.S.M. Hasan Fizal appeared for the state, and Additional Public Prosecutor R. Muniyapparaj represented the police. The petition was represented by advocates D. Baskar, E. Ashok Kumar, K.B. Rohitih, Pooja J. and B. Sankara Narayanan.

The decision drew varied reactions in public discourse, with some commentators warning against courts deferring to majority sentiment and others criticising the order on constitutional grounds.