Objections by Hindu Majority Can't Be Casually Brushed Aside: Madras High Court Stays Church Construction Near Temple

Observing that authorities "must not casually brush aside" objections when Hindus constitute an overwhelming majority in a locality and vigorously oppose the construction of a church near an existing temple, the Madras High Court has stayed the proposed construction of a church near a century-old Mariyamman temple in Coimbatore's Kalapatti area and granted an interim injunction against further work.

A vacation bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan passed the order while hearing a petition challenging communications issued by the Coimbatore District Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer granting police protection to facilitate construction by the CSI Christ King Church.

Also Read| Madras High Court’s Justice G.R. Swaminathan Calls Anti-Guru Rationalists ‘Rascals, Barbarians'

Court noted that the proposed church is to come up in close proximity to a century-old Mariyamman temple and observed that the authorities ought not to have brushed aside sustained objections from local residents while considering the proposal.

The bench also recorded that Coimbatore is a "communally sensitive city" that has witnessed "bomb blasts and bloody religious riots". It further observed that the proposed church would come up "within a stone's throw" of the existing temple and remarked that if a large church is proposed in the vicinity of the temple, "mala fide intentions cannot be ruled out".

The dispute relates to Survey No.155/2 at Kalapatti village. The petitioner, namely Balasubramaniyam N, a resident of Kalapatti area, contended that the site is a government poramboke land and public road and challenged official communications facilitating construction activity at the location.

Also Read| “Judges Are Not Holy Cows”: Madras High Court on Film Depicting Corrupt Judge

Court noted that a Mariyamman temple has existed in the adjoining survey field for more than a hundred years. It further recorded that permission for construction of the church had originally been granted by the District Collector in January 2010, following which worshippers of the temple instituted a civil suit before the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. That suit, questioning the permission and seeking an injunction, continues to remain pending.

According to the bench, the proposed construction could not proceed for more than thirteen years because of local opposition and the pendency of the litigation. Peace meetings had been conducted and authorities had at one stage called upon the church to stop construction activities.

Why did the court intervene?

The judges said revenue records placed before them showed that Survey No.155/2 is classified as a tar road. Referring to Supreme Court orders prohibiting religious structures on roads and road margins, the bench observed that title cannot vest in a private body when revenue records describe the land as a public road.

Also Read| Madras HC Slams Christians' Monopoly on Public Land in Hindu-Minority Village

Court further noted that the material on record was insufficient to conclude that the church was proposed on patta land and that there was no declaration of title in favour of the church.

The bench also relied on an April 2026 order passed in litigation initiated by the Church itself. In that case, a coordinate bench had granted liberty to submit a fresh application for construction only after disposal of the pending civil suit.

According to the present bench, that direction necessarily meant that status quo had to be maintained until the suit was decided. Since the suit remains pending, the authorities ought not to have sought to enforce the impugned communications granting police protection, it held.

What did the court say on religious freedom?

While recognising that Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, the court emphasised that the right is subject to public order.

The bench clarified that it was not laying down a rule that opposition by itself should defeat a legal right.

"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," it observed.

Holding that a prima facie case had been made out, court said irreparable hardship and loss would be caused to social amity if interim protection was not granted.

It consequently ordered an interim injunction, effectively halting further construction activity at the disputed site.

Case Title: Balasubramaniyam N v. The Collector, Coimbatore District & Ors.

Order Date: May 29, 2026

Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan