Case Title: K. Rajamani v. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment & Ors. Case No.: W.P(MD)No.30834 of 2025 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan Court: Madras High Court, Madurai Bench Date of Order: October 31, 2025

MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has emphatically ruled that a government-owned public ground cannot be reserved for the exclusive use of one religious community, even if based on a century-old practice.

The Court, while highlighting the principles of a secular republic, set aside a Tahsildar's order that denied permission to Hindus to conduct Annadhanam (food distribution) on a public ground traditionally used by the Christian community for Easter celebrations.

"We are a secular, democratic republic. Any pre-constitutional arrangement that is not in accord with the constitutional provisions and ethos cannot be allowed to continue. A public ground should be available for the use of all communities or none," observed Justice G.R. Swaminathan.

The Background of the Dispute

The case was initiated by K. Rajamani, a resident of N. Panchampatti village in Dindigul district. He sought permission to conduct Annadhanam on November 3, 2025, for the Kumbabisekam of the local Kaliyamman Temple. The proposed venue was a government-owned open space (Survey No. 202/3), also known as Sunkasavadi Ground, located near the temple.

The Tahsildar of Athur Taluk rejected his request on October 24, 2025. Instead, the authorities offered a public road as an alternative venue, prompting the petitioner to challenge the rejection in the High Court.

Opposing Arguments: Tradition and Law & Order

During the hearing, the police opposed the event, citing potential "law and order issues."

The counsel for a representative of the local Christian community (the fourth respondent) argued that a portion of the ground contained a "Pascha Stage," which has been used for over a century to conduct Easter programmes and dramas. It was contended that Hindus were never permitted to use the ground for any religious purpose, referencing Tahsildar proceedings from 1912 and a 2017 peace committee resolution that allowed only "customary events."

Court's Findings: Government Land is for Everyone

Justice Swaminathan, after considering the submissions, noted that the land's status was not in dispute. Both the government and the private respondent admitted that the land was classified as “vacant site / grama natham” and belonged to the government, not a private religious body. The court also referenced a 2021 Division Bench order that had already prohibited any private construction on the same land.

The Court flatly rejected the argument that past practice could justify present-day exclusion.

"I cannot accept the submission that while Christians can use the ground on Easter but Hindus cannot conduct Annadhanam in the very same place," the judge stated.

The Court held that while the Christian community’s right to use the ground for Easter should continue undisturbed, it provided no justification to deny Hindus permission to use it on a different, available date.

Denial Violates Article 15 & 25

Justice Swaminathan held that excluding a community solely on religious grounds would be a clear violation of Article 15 of the Constitution (prohibition of discrimination).

Furthermore, the Court recognized the significance of the event itself. Citing earlier judgments, the bench noted that Annadhanam is considered a form of religious observance aimed at seeking "Moksham" (salvation) and is protected under Article 25 (right to freedom of religion).

"Confession of Impotence"

The Court strongly rebuked the administration's reliance on the "law and order" bogey. It was noted that the village's demographic imbalance—comprising approximately 2,500 Christian families and 400 Hindu families—was the likely reason for the authorities' apprehension.

The Court described this as a "very sorry state of affairs" and held that administrative authorities cannot deny fundamental rights due to apprehended disturbances. Citing a 1926 Madras High Court judgment (Venkata Subbaya v. Muhammad Falauddin Khaji), Justice Swaminathan said such refusals amounted to a "confession of impotence on the part of the authorities."

"Such interactions alone will ensure inter-religious harmony," the judge observed, calling for mutual participation in religious events.

The Final Order

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Tahsildar's "illegal" order.

The petitioner was permitted to conduct the Annadhanam on November 3, 2025, at the disputed ground.
The Court directed that the site be restored to its original condition after the event.
The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, was directed to ensure that the function "passes off peacefully."

Click on the link to read full judgement:

https://mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/2039504