In a significant judgment reaffirming the primacy of public space over unauthorized religious structures, the Madras High Court has ruled that encroachments on public roads or lands vested with local bodies cannot be permitted, regardless of their religious character. Justice V. Lakshminarayana, presiding over the case, emphasized that "a road or a street does not have any religious character" and that it is the statutory duty of municipal authorities to keep public pathways clear for the citizens.
The ruling came during the hearing of a writ petition filed by a property owner seeking the removal of a shrine dedicated to Mother Velankanni, which was allegedly obstructing the entrance to his house and a public walkway in Chennai.
The petitioner, A. Sarath, moved the Court after purchasing a property in 2024. During subsequent repair and renovation works, he discovered that a small shrine had been constructed on a structure immediately adjacent to his main entrance. According to the petitioner, this shrine was not only an encroachment on the public street but also physically blocked the access to his home and inconvenienced pedestrians.
Furthermore, it was alleged that the structure was consuming electricity illegally by drawing power from a nearby residence, posing safety risks and flouting local regulations.
The case took a contentious turn when a private individual, R. Daniel, impleaded himself in the proceedings. Daniel claimed that he had installed the shrine as far back as 1995. He argued that over the last three decades, the shrine had become a vital "place of faith, hope, and emotional strength" for the local community.
The respondent’s counsel contended that:
- The shrine had existed for 30 years without any prior complaints.
- Removing it would hurt the religious sentiments of the devotees and potentially disturb communal harmony in the area.
- The petitioner’s motives were "arbitrary and biased," alleging that the petitioner had no objection to similar Hindu structures (like Vinayaka shrines) in the vicinity.
Daniel further leveled serious counter-allegations against the petitioner, claiming that Sarath was using his own property for illegal activities, including operating an unlicensed food court, an illegal bar, and even selling crackers and country bombs used in funeral processions.
After examining the official records, the Court found that the shrine was indeed situated on land classified as 'Sarkar Poramboke' (Government land), specifically occupying about 8 square meters of a public street.
Justice Lakshminarayana dismissed the argument that religious sentiments should act as a shield for illegal construction. The Court noted that the nature of the superstructure—whether it is religious or irreligious—is irrelevant once it is established that it occupies a public space.
"A road or a street does not have any religious character," the Court remarked. "Irrespective of the nature of the superstructure... the Commissioner is statutorily required to remove the same after due notice."