Roads Have No Religious Character, Madras HC Says

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has recently directed the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) to complete proceedings against a roadside shrine dedicated to Mother Velankanni. The Court observed that every moment an illegal structure remains on a public street, it creates a "fresh cause of action" for authorities to take action.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, while presiding over the case of A. Sarath vs. Commissioner, emphasized that public infrastructure serves a secular purpose.

"A road or a street does not have any religious character. Irrespective of the nature of the superstructure, whether it is religious or irreligious, if it is an encroachment on a public place, the Commissioner is statutorily required to remove the same," the Court held.

The case reached the High Court following a petition filed by Mr. A. Sarath, who purchased a residential property in Chennai in November 2024. According to the petitioner, at the time of purchase, he was led to believe that a raised structure abutting the entrance of his property was temporary.

However, the situation escalated when a statue of Mother Mary was installed in the structure, accompanied by a tall pillar fitted with an amplifier. The petitioner alleged that the shrine not only obstructed the entrance to his home but also significantly impeded pedestrian movement on the public pathway.

Furthermore, it was discovered that an electricity connection for the shrine had been illegally drawn from a neighboring house. Despite submitting a formal complaint to the Greater Chennai Corporation in September 2025, no concrete action was taken, forcing the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus from the High Court.

During the legal proceedings, the High Court directed the Corporation to inspect the site. The inspection report confirmed the petitioner’s claims:

1. The shrine was located on “Sarkar Poramboke” land—land owned by the government and classified specifically as a public road in the Town Survey Land Records.
2. The structure was an undeniable encroachment on public space.

Following this, the Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central) issued a seven-day notice on January 19, 2026, to Mr. R. Daniel, the individual identified as the maintainer of the shrine.

Mr. Daniel, the private respondent in the case, argued that the shrine was not a recent addition. He claimed that he and other local residents had established the shrine in 1995 and had maintained it peacefully for nearly three decades.

His legal counsel argued that:

1. The shrine had existed for 30 years without objection.
2. It had become a "place of faith, hope, and emotional strength" for the local community.
3. Its removal could potentially disturb communal harmony in the area.

Justice Lakshminarayanan was not persuaded by the argument of "long-term existence." The Court noted that the passage of time does not grant a "right to encroach."

1. On the Duty of Authorities: The Court pointed out that under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, municipal authorities have a "statutory duty" to remove encroachments. The judge remarked that the Commissioner does not just have the power to remove such structures, but an obligation to do so.

2. On Continuous Wrongdoing: The Court used a strong legal principle to explain why the age of the shrine didn't matter: "Every minute, nay, second that an illegal superstructure is on a public road or a street, it gives a fresh cause of action to the Commissioner." In simpler terms, an illegal structure is a "continuing wrong," and the law allows action against it regardless of how long it has been there.

3. On Religious Character: The judgment made a clear distinction between private faith and public space. By stating that roads have no religious character, the Court reinforced the idea that the law applies equally to all structures. Whether a building is a place of worship or a commercial shop, if it sits on a public pavement, it is an encroachment.

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court directed the Greater Chennai Corporation to proceed with the enforcement process "in full vigor."

The Court set a strict timeline:

1. The authorities must pass an appropriate final order on or before February 10, 2026.
2. The Regional Deputy Commissioner must consider any response provided by Mr. Daniel within the legal timeframe before taking final action.

The Court has posted the matter for a compliance report on February 11, 2026, to ensure its orders are carried out.

1. Case Title: A. Sarath Vs Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation & Others
2. Case Number: W.P. No. 49192 of 2025
3. Date of Order: January 22, 2026
4. For the Petitioner: Advocate B. Kaarvannan.
5. For the Corporation: Advocates C. Ramesh and R. Udaykumar.
6. For the Private Respondent: Advocate S. Baskar.