Madras High Court halts church construction near Coimbatore temple, citing public order, disputed land

The Madras High Court has temporarily halted the construction of a church near a century-old Hindu temple in Coimbatore, citing disputed ownership of the proposed site, its classification in revenue records as a public road, and concerns that the project could disturb religious harmony in a city with a history of communal violence.

The interim injunction was issued on May 29 by a Division Bench comprising Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan.

The case was brought by N Balasubramaniyam, a resident of Kalapatti, who challenged communications issued by the Coimbatore District Collector and the revenue divisional officer providing police protection for the construction of the CSI Christ King Church.

The court said the proposed building would stand close to an existing Mariyamman temple and recorded the petitioner’s claim that only a small number of Christian families lived in the locality. “Coimbatore is a communally sensitive city. It witnessed bomb blasts and bloody religious riots. The proposed church would come up within a stone’s throw from the existing Mariyamman Temple. There are only a handful of Christian families. If a large church is proposed to be constructed in the vicinity of the Mariyamman Temple, mala fide intentions cannot be ruled out.”

The Bench also recorded an allegation by the petitioner’s lawyer that the proposed building could be used for religious conversion, without making a finding that such activity had occurred.

“The counsel for the petitioner hints at the possibility of the new building being a centre of conversion activity. We are a secular nation. We are a pluralist society. Religious amity has to be preserved. If a religious right is established, then it is the duty of the State to aid in its enforcement,” the court observed.

Disputed land

At the centre of the dispute is land identified as Old Survey No. 155/2. The court said revenue records described it as a tar road, while the material placed before it was insufficient to establish that the church was being built on privately owned patta land.

Story continues below this ad

“The material on record is utterly insufficient to conclude that the church is to come up on a patta land. Title cannot vest in a private body when the revenue record indicates that it is a public road. In that event, title has to be established by filing a suit. As on date there is no declaration in favour of the Church,” it observed.

The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s directions prohibiting religious structures on roads and road margins. It also noted that a civil suit filed in 2011 by worshippers of the Mariyamman temple, challenging the original permission granted for the church, remained pending before the District Munsif Court in Coimbatore.

The District Collector had granted permission for the construction in January 2010. But the project did not proceed for more than a decade amid local opposition, litigation, law-and-order concerns and peace meetings. The collector later appears to have directed the private respondents to stop the work.

In a separate case brought by the Church of South India, the High Court had ruled on April 28 that a fresh application for construction could be made only after the civil suit was decided. The present Bench said that the earlier ruling effectively required the status quo to continue until then.

Story continues below this ad

“When His Lordship Mr Justice M Dhandapani had made it clear that after the conclusion of the suit, a fresh application can be submitted for construction of church, it obviously means that till the suit is disposed of, the status quo must be maintained. This order holds good as on date. It is conceded by the respondents that the suit instituted by the Hindu community against the construction of the church is still pending.”

The court also examined the constitutional protection afforded to religious practice under Article 25, emphasising that it remained subject to considerations of public order, morality and health. “It is obvious that this right is subject to public order. When the even tempo of public life is disturbed in a given locality, that would also fall within the scope of public order.”

‘Permission can’t be granted mechanically’

The Bench said permission for a religious structure could not be granted mechanically. Under the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, it noted that an application for approval must be accompanied by a no-objection certificate from the District Collector. The authority, it said, must examine the need for such permission, particularly where strong opposition exists.

The order recorded several political allegations made by the petitioner’s lawyer while seeking urgent intervention during the court’s vacation sitting. The lawyer argued that, following the formation of a government headed by Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay, certain organisations had become emboldened. “He pointed out that the Hon’ble Speaker Shri JCD Prabhakar, who proclaims that he had distributed thousands of free copies of the Bible, quoted biblical verses in his inaugural address to the Legislative Assembly.”

Story continues below this ad

The order further recorded the counsel’s submission that posters had appeared in parts of Tamil Nadu calling for churches to be constructed in every village. These statements were presented in the judgment as submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel, rather than findings independently reached by the court.

While stressing the local opposition, the judges added an important qualification: resistance from residents could not by itself extinguish a legally established right.

“We should not be understood as holding that if there is opposition, the State must submit to it. Far from it. If right is established or if the opposition is found to be unreasonable, then the State should go to any extent to uphold the right,” the Bench said.

But the court found that the combination of the disputed title, the road classification, the proximity of the temple, the pending lawsuit and the earlier High Court order justified temporary restraint.