Two organisations, broadly of the same fold, each wanted the same Sunday for its idol-immersion procession. The police had already given the day to one; the other came to court to claim it. The Madras High Court was unimpressed by the contest. Calling it a game of one-upmanship and asking why two groups of the same persuasion could not simply coordinate, the judge declined to disturb the arrangement, deferred to the police on managing crowds and a river’s limited capacity, and gently doubted whether the timing of a procession was a matter for the writ jurisdiction at all.
Chennai: The Madras High Court has declined to alter the dates allotted by the police for Vinayagar idol-immersion processions in the Nilgiris district, observing that there appeared to be a “game of one-upmanship” between the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Hindu Munnani in the celebration of the festival.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan made the observation while hearing the VHP’s plea seeking permission to hold its immersion processions on September 20, a Sunday, instead of the dates the police had assigned to it.
The scheduling dispute
The police had fixed September 20 for the Hindu Munnani’s immersion procession, and given the VHP September 19 and September 21. The VHP wanted the Sunday too, arguing that it would allow greater participation. The Court declined to change the dates, and asked why the two organisations, which it described as broadly part of the same ideological grouping, could not coordinate between themselves on such matters.
“It’s all a game of one-upmanship. You want to say you are more powerful than Hindu Munnani; he is VHP.”
In a lighter aside in Tamil, the judge suggested that the only apparent difference between the two groups was the language their respective deities spoke, and cautioned against turning the festival into a contest that burdened the police.
“Your Vinayagar will speak in Hindi, their Vinayagar will speak in Tamil, that is the only difference! Don’t unnecessarily do politics with all this and stress out the police.”
The State’s explanation
The State told the Court that the two organisations are historically given separate dates because their events, when they coincided, had led to problems. It explained the allocation on practical grounds: the VHP had 24 idols for immersion this year against the Hindu Munnani’s seven, which was among the reasons the VHP had been given two days to the other group’s one.
Immersion activities, the State submitted, are accompanied by celebrations and large gatherings, and it pointed to the previous year’s records, when several hundred people had taken part in each organisation’s processions. The capacity of the river used for immersion, it added, also had to be considered, since all the idols could not necessarily be immersed at once.
Too late, and the wrong forum
The Court noted that the VHP had approached the authorities only after September 20 had already been granted to the Hindu Munnani, and that an earlier approach might have allowed the other group to be put on notice and some arrangement worked out.
“If you had at least come earlier, we could have given notice to Hindu Munnani and arranged something; you didn’t do that either.”
Telling the VHP’s counsel to “try your luck next year”, the judge suggested the organisation either approach the authorities earlier for any change of dates or conduct the event jointly with the Hindu Munnani. He also declined to micromanage the police arrangements, remarking, “I am not running the government, sir. Police requires support.”
Significantly, the Court questioned whether the scheduling of an idol-immersion procession warranted the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at all, drawing a distinction between a refusal of permission and a mere dispute over timing:
“If they didn’t allow placing the Vinayagar idol, we could issue a mandamus. Would people come for a writ even for when to remove it after placing?”
The Court made clear it was not inclined to disturb the arrangement made by the authorities this year.
Why it matters
Behind the quotable remarks lies a straightforward point about the limits of judicial intervention. The allotment of dates and routes for religious processions is, in the first place, an administrative and law-and-order function of the police, who must weigh competing requests, the size of the gatherings, and, here, even the physical capacity of the river used for immersion. A High Court exercising writ jurisdiction is slow to substitute its own judgment for that of the authority actually responsible for keeping order, and the Court’s deference, “I am not running the government”, reflects that reticence.
The observation on Article 226 is the sharper legal thread. The Court drew a line between a genuine denial of the right to hold a procession, which could attract a writ of mandamus, and a dispute merely about which day one group processes on, which, on the judge’s view, does not obviously rise to the level of a justiciable grievance. Writ jurisdiction exists to remedy the violation of a right, not to arbitrate a scheduling contest between two organisations that could resolve it by talking to each other, and the timing of the VHP’s approach, after the date had already gone to the other group, did nothing to help its case.
The Court’s lighter remarks, delivered as chiding humour rather than as any comment on faith, were plainly aimed at the rivalry between the two organisations and not at the festival or its observance. Read in context, the message was practical and even-handed: the celebration is common ground, the difference between the groups is one of assertion rather than substance, and the sensible course is coordination rather than litigation. For this year the arrangement stands; the Court left it to the organisations to plan better, and earlier, for the next.
Case: VHP’s plea seeking permission to hold Vinayagar idol-immersion processions in the Nilgiris district on September 20, 2026
Bench: Justice V Lakshminarayanan, High Court of Madras
Date of Hearing: September 18, 2026
Appearing: Special Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani for the State Government
Status: Court declined to alter the police-allotted dates; not inclined to interfere with this year’s arrangement.