The Madras High Court ordered strict security arrangements during Madurai’s Lord Kallazhagar procession, condemning alleged chappal-throwing incidents against devotees as an affront to faith, customary religious practices, and the secular fraternity forming part of India’s constitutional ethos.
The Madras High Court recently issued strong directions to ensure security during the annual Lord Kallazhagar procession in Madurai after concerns were raised regarding incidents of miscreants allegedly throwing chappals at devotees during the religious event. The petition was filed seeking preventive measures to maintain peace and protect devotees participating in the revered Chithirai Festival procession, especially during the ceremonial journey leading to the deity’s entry into the Vaigai River.
The matter was heard by Justice L. Victoria Gowri, who observed that such acts go far beyond ordinary misconduct and directly affect religious harmony and constitutional values. The Court emphasised that the Chithirai Festival is not merely a temple celebration but a centuries-old cultural and civilizational tradition deeply connected to Tamil heritage and faith practices.
While addressing the seriousness of the issue, the Court observed,
“Throwing chappals at devotees in the midst of a divine procession is not merely an act of disorder; it is an affront to faith, an assault upon customary religious practice, and a desecration of the secular fraternity that forms part of the constitutional ethos.”
The Bench noted that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution guarantee freedom of conscience and protect the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. According to the Court, any deliberate attempt to insult or obstruct a sacred religious procession cannot be treated lightly, as it affects not only public order but also constitutional morality and communal harmony.
The Court further remarked,
“This Court is constrained to observe that throwing chappals upon devotees in a religious procession amounts to a grave affront to public decency, religious harmony and social fraternity and must be dealt with, to borrow a phrase apt to the occasion, with an iron hand. Miscreants attempting to mar a sacred event cannot claim indulgence under the guise of ordinary disorderly conduct. Preservation of a centuries-old civilizational festival is itself a constitutional value.”
Highlighting the symbolic nature of such actions, the Court stated that these incidents cannot be dismissed as isolated acts of hooliganism.
The order recorded,
“The acts complained of cannot be trivialised as stray hooliganism. Throwing chappals upon devotees participating in a divine procession carries symbolic insult. It seeks to pollute sanctity through calculated indignity. Such acts offend not merely public order but constitutional morality.”
Taking note of the need for heightened security arrangements, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Police to deploy 15 to 20 striking force vehicles along the 7.6-kilometre city route of the procession. The Court additionally ordered that at least 10 striking force vehicles should be stationed near the Vaigai riverbed area, which witnesses large gatherings during the procession.
The Bench also instructed the police to maintain continuous vigilance using watchtowers and drone surveillance in vulnerable areas. It directed authorities to immediately apprehend any person found engaging in disruptive acts such as throwing chappals or creating disturbances during the procession and initiate appropriate legal and remand proceedings against them.
Concluding the matter, the Court made it clear that strict action would be taken against any attempt to disturb the sanctity of the procession.
The Bench stated while disposing of the petition,
“This Court makes it clear that any attempt to desecrate or disrupt the sanctity of the procession shall be dealt with sternly and without hesitation,”
Advocate R.J. Karthick appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate C. Satheesh represented the respondents.
Case Title: P. Sundaravadivel v. The District Collector.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE