Safiya Malik

The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh dismissed a writ petition seeking enforcement of exclusive religious rights during temple processions at the Vilakkoli Perumal Sri Vedantha Desikar Thirukoil in Kanchipuram. The petitioners, belonging to the Thenkalai sect, challenged a communication dated May 28, 2024, from the temple’s Executive Officer, which refused to permit recitation of sect-specific verses during public processions outside the temple.

The Court declined to interfere with the administrative communication, holding that any rights arising from an earlier civil decree must be enforced through proper execution proceedings before the civil court. It stated that a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be used as an execution mechanism. Noting past disputes between the Thenkalai and Vadakalai sects and the potential for breach of peace, the Court upheld the administrative refusal to avoid further clashes. While dismissing the petition, the Court permitted the petitioners to approach the civil court to enforce their rights under the 1915 decree. The judgment closed with a poetic call for sectarian unity and peaceful coexistence.

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Tamil Nadu Over ADGP Suspension | You Can’t Do This, This Is Very Demoralising | Shocked By High Court’s Arrest Order

The petition was filed by two individuals claiming to be devotees of the Thenkalai sect of the Shri Vaishnavite tradition. They asserted rights to perform religious recitations, including Prabhandham and associated mantrams, outside the Vilakkoli Perumal (Deepa Prakasar) temple premises during temple processions. The dispute arose from a letter dated May 28, 2024, issued by the Executive Officer of the temple, which denied permission to conduct such recitals.

The Vilakkoli Temple is one of the 18 Divyadesams in Kanchipuram revered by Vaishnavites. The Shri Vaishnavite community comprises two sects—the Thenkalai and the Vadakalai. The Thenkalai sect states Tamil Prabhandhams composed by Alwars and regards Swami Manavala Mahamuni as their Acharya. The Vadakalai sect prioritizes Sanskrit Vedas and reveres Swami Vedantha Desikar. A longstanding division between these sects led to multiple litigations beginning as early as 1811.

The petitioners cited a civil court judgment and decree dated May 15, 1915, in O.S. No.414 of 1908, where the District Munsif Court, Conjeevaram, upheld the Thenkalai sect's right to recite the Thenkalai mantram (Sri Sailesa Dhaya Pathram) and related Prabhandhams within the temple and at associated shrines. Though this judgment was reversed by the District Court in appeal, the Madras High Court reinstated the trial court decree in a judgment dated July 18, 1918, in C.M.A. No.221 of 1917.

Further declarations were made in favor of the Thenkalai sect, including recognition of their exclusive right to recite their mantrams and a permanent injunction restraining Vadakalais from forming separate Goshtis or reciting their verses during ceremonial worship within the temple. The petitioners alleged that despite this decree, Vadakalai devotees continued to interfere with their rights both inside and outside the temple.

In 2006, a letter from the temple’s Executive Officer claimed that Thenkalai devotees had relinquished their recital rights inside the temple. This led to W.P. No.20952 of 2006, which was dismissed in 2014. The dismissal was upheld in W.A. No.305 of 2016 and further affirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.17743 of 2024, which was dismissed on August 27, 2024.

Despite adverse judgements, the petitioners asserted that the right to recite verses outside the temple during processions was never relinquished. They challenged the impugned communication dated May 28, 2024, for denying them this right, contending it violated the earlier civil court decree.

The respondents included officials from the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Department, temple administrators, and members of the Vadakalai sect. Various counter affidavits were filed in previous litigation, where temple authorities and the Thatha Desika Thiruvamsathan Sabha claimed the Thenkalai devotees had abandoned their rights inside the temple and had historically only recited verses outside the premises. They contended that only Vadakalai traditions had been followed inside the temple for over 80 years.

The Court observed, "The only issue that is involved in the present writ petition pertains to the right claimed by the persons belonging to the Thenkalai Sect to recite Prabhandhams outside the temple during procession."

Justice Venkatesh noted that "a decree passed by the civil court cannot be enforced by invoking the jurisdiction of the Writ Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India." He cited precedents, including Swamy Atmananda v. Swami Bodhananda & Others (2005) 3 SCC 734 and the Division Bench judgement in Government of Tamil Nadu v. Rajamanickam (1996) 2 CTC 211, to support this position.

The Court recorded, "It is clear from the above cited judgments that a Writ Court cannot be used as an Executing Court to implement the decree passed by the civil court." It further stated that "the remedy that is now available for the petitioners is to file an execution petition before the competent civil court if at all they are seeking to enforce their right traceable to the decree passed by the competent civil court."

On the administrative decision by the Executive Officer, the Court observed, "The impugned letter of the second respondent that has been put to challenge in the present writ petition cannot be faulted by the petitioners since the second respondent has taken into consideration the repeated clashes that took place between the Thenkalais and Vadakalais during festive occasions."

Addressing the sectarian disputes, the Court noted, "Time and again, during such occasions, the persons belonging to the Thenkalai and the Vadakalai Sects have literally come to blows for their fervour to establish the superiority of their respective Acharyas." Justice Venkatesh acknowledged the temple’s concern for maintaining peace, stating, "Therefore, the second respondent wanted to avoid such a volatile situation during an occasion, which needs to be celebrated in peace."

In reflecting on the spiritual purpose of religious gatherings, the Court stated, "Instead of attempting to project the respective Acharyas even above Lord Venkateshwara... at some point of time, one of the parties has to rest in abiding by the rule of law and making the entire event peaceful, which is the objective of any religion."

The judgment concluded with a poetic invocation:

"Vadakalai and Thenkalai, two petals on one stem, both seek Lord Venkateswara Perumal, both belong to Him. In the name of Acharyas, the quarrels still ignite, yet, those wise souls now bask in the Lord's pure light. Their journeys ended at His lotus feet so grand, while we, their children, still draw lines in the sand. Let us honour their path, let old divisions cease - and walk together united in faith and peace."

Also Read: Registrar Cannot Cancel Marriage Merely on Parties' Change of Stand | Kerala HC Says Disputed Marital Status Must Be Decided by Civil Court

The Court held that it "does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned letter dated 28.5.2024 issued by the second respondent." It dismissed the writ petition, observing that "if they strongly feel that they must recite the verses in the praise of their Acharya - Sri Manavala Mahamuni and close with the benedictory verses in praise of their Acharya, they will have to necessarily approach the civil court so as to execute the decree."

The Court also made it clear that, "the second respondent shall not be dragged to the police station on the basis of the complaint given against him/her for the enforcement of the civil court's decree." It restricted police intervention only to situations of imminent disturbance, stating, "The police officials must interfere only when there is a breach of peace and if the situation is going out of control. Apart from that, the police officials have no role to play in the execution of the civil court's decree."

The petition was accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are also dismissed.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. P.V. Balasubramaniam, Senior Counsel for Ms. Varuni Mohan

For the Respondents: Mr. K. Karthikeyan, Government Advocate (HR & CE); Mr. R. Bharanidharan; Mr. G. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s. G.R. Associates; Mr. Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel for Mr. Abhinav Parthasarathy; Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr. V. Nittilakshan; Mr. T. Mohan, Senior Counsel for Mr. Palaniandavan; Mrs. Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel for Mrs. R. Meenal; Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for Ms. R. Ramya; Mr. S.J. Krishnan; Mr. N.V. Balaji

Case Title: T.A.P. Srirangachari & Another v. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:1381

Case Number: WP.No.18076 of 2024

Bench: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh

[Read/Download order]