Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madras at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan held that the right to conduct Annadhanam, or distribution of food during a temple festival, forms part of an individual’s fundamental right protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court stated that local authorities have a constitutional duty to uphold this right and address any law and order concerns that may arise, rather than curtailing religious observance. Deciding a petition challenging the denial of permission to conduct Annadhanam on public land near a temple, the Court quashed the Tahsildar’s order and permitted the event to be held on the government-owned ground. It further directed the police to ensure peace during the function and required the organisers to restore the site afterward.

The petitioner, a resident of N. Panchampatti Village in Dindigul District, sought permission from the local revenue authorities to conduct Annadhanam, a food distribution event, in connection with the Kumbabishekam ceremony of a Hindu temple scheduled for November 3, 2025. The proposed venue was an open government-owned ground located in Survey No. 202/3, identified as village common land. The Tahsildar of Athur Taluk rejected the request and instead allotted an alternative location on a public road connecting N. Panchampatti and Munnilaikottai. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking permission to conduct the event at the original site.

Also Read: Investigating Agencies Barred From Summoning Advocates For Legal Advice Given To Accused; Privileged Communications Protected Under S.132–134 BSA, In-House Counsel Not Covered By Privilege: Supreme Court

The local police opposed the request, stating that allowing the event on the disputed ground might lead to law and order problems. The Revenue Department supported this view. The fourth respondent, representing members of the Christian community in the village, submitted that the open ground has historically been used for Easter celebrations, with a permanent stage built there more than a century ago. It was claimed that Hindus had never been permitted to use the space for religious functions. The respondent produced records from the Tahsildar’s office dating back to 1912 and referred to a peace committee resolution passed in 2017, which restricted the conduct of new functions beyond those traditionally permitted.

The State authorities informed the Court that the site was classified as “vacant land/grama natham” belonging to the government, not private property. Reference was made to an earlier Division Bench order of April 2021 clarifying that no construction could be undertaken on the same ground. The petitioner maintained that the refusal to permit the Annadhanam violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution, while the respondents relied on administrative concerns and potential disturbance of public order to justify the denial.

The Court observed that “when the land in question is not a patta land but belongs to the Government, it should be available to all sections irrespective of religious or communal background.” It recorded that the Christian community had been using the ground for Easter celebrations for more than a century, but noted that “any pre-constitutional arrangement that is not in accord with the constitutional provisions and ethos cannot be allowed to continue.”

The Court stated that “a public ground should be available for the use of all communities or none” and held that “while Christians can use the ground on Easter but Hindus cannot conduct Annadhanam in the very same place” was a position that could not be accepted. It observed that “if a public ground belonging to the State is available for use of the general public, a particular section cannot be excluded from using the same.” The Court recorded that “if the sole ground of exclusion is religion, it certainly would offend Article 15 of the Constitution of India.”

Regarding the plea of law and order, the Court noted that “the official respondents have taken shelter behind the plea of law and order” and referred to a Division Bench decision which held that “right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied or taken away on a mere objection or apprehension of law and order.” It observed that “what applies to the establishment of a bible study centre will equally apply for holding an Annadhanam event in connection with Kumbabisekam.”

The Court recorded that “Dharmam—especially Annadhanam—is to seek salvation, in other words Moksham and it would amount to observance of a religious character.” It further quoted that “Hindu tradition does not draw a line of distinction between religion and charity and charity is always regarded as part of religious observance.” Based on this, the Court observed that “the right to hold Annadhanam can even be brought within the scope of one's fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.”

Also Read: Recusal Plea by Madras Race Club Rejected; Status Quo Modified for Public Works: Madras High Court

The Court stated that “when it comes to upholding fundamental rights, it is the duty of the local administration to stand in aid of the same.” It recorded that “the police should not choose the easy option of stifling the fundamental rights” and that “if any law and order problem arises, the same must be dealt with appropriately.”

“The impugned order is accordingly interfered with. The petitioner is permitted to hold the Annadhanam event in the ground in question. He can also make appropriate arrangements. But the ground should be handed over back in the very same condition in which it was entrusted. I direct the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul to ensure that the event passes off peacefully. This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Manikandan.
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader; Mr. M. Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader; Mr. A. Albert James, Government Advocate; Mr. A. John Vincent

Case Title: K. Rajamani v. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Dindigul & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(MD) No.30834 of 2025.
Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan.