The Madras High Court ruled that public roads and streets do not carry any religious character and cannot be encroached upon in the name of faith. Directing the Greater Chennai Corporation to act, the Court ordered removal of a Christian shrine found illegally occupying a public road.
The Madras High Court has made it clear that public roads and streets do not belong to any religion and cannot be occupied by anyone, even in the name of faith. While directing the Greater Chennai Corporation to remove a Christian shrine that was found to be encroaching on a public road, the Court held that any illegal structure on a public street must be removed as per law, irrespective of whether it is religious or non-religious in nature.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a local resident who complained that a shrine had been constructed on a public pathway, causing serious obstruction to pedestrians and restricting access to his property. The petitioner had sought directions to the Greater Chennai Corporation to act on his complaint and remove the encroachment.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan allowed the writ petition and observed that
“a road or a street does not have any religious character, …irrespective of the nature of the superstructure, whether it is religious or irreligious, in case, it is an encroachment on a street or a public place or on a land vested to or belonging to a local body, the Commissioner is statutorily required to remove the same after due notice.”
The petitioner stated that when he purchased the property adjoining the public pathway, the structure on the pathway was shown as a temporary one. However, over time, it was converted into a full-fledged shrine.
He alleged that a statue was installed, a tall pillar was erected, an amplifier was fixed, and electricity was illegally drawn from a nearby residential building. According to him, these developments caused inconvenience to pedestrians and blocked free movement on the public road.
Despite submitting a complaint to the Greater Chennai Corporation seeking removal of the encroachment, no action was taken by the authorities. Left with no other option, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to act.
During the proceedings, the third respondent was impleaded and claimed that the shrine had existed for several decades and had become a place of worship for residents of the area.
It was argued that the shrine had remained without objection for many years and that its removal would hurt religious sentiments and disturb communal harmony.
The Corporation authorities, however, placed inspection reports and revenue records before the Court, including Town Survey Land Records.
These records clearly showed that the land on which the structure stood was classified as Sarkar Poramboke and recorded as a public street. Based on this, the authorities maintained that the structure was an encroachment on a public road.
The Regional Deputy Commissioner of the Corporation had already issued a notice to the third respondent under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, calling upon him to remove the unauthorised structure erected on the public street.
After examining the materials on record, the High Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the structure had been erected on a public pathway classified as Sarkar Poramboke Street.
The Court rejected the argument that the shrine’s long existence could justify its continuation, holding that no person has the right to put up or maintain a religious structure on a public road and then resist its removal by invoking religious sentiments.
The Court relied on earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts to reiterate that the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution does not include the right to worship or maintain religious structures on public roads or footpaths. It held that unauthorised religious structures on public pathways are not protected as essential religious practices.
The Bench further observed that religious freedom cannot be used as a shield to protect illegal encroachments on public streets. It emphasised that any encroachment on a public road is liable to be removed, regardless of whether the structure is religious or otherwise.
The Court examined Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and held that the Commissioner of the local body has a statutory obligation to remove encroachments on public streets and places after issuing due notice. It found that the notice issued by the Regional Deputy Commissioner complied with all legal requirements.
Rejecting the plea that the idol could not be removed, the Court noted that the third respondent had himself admitted to establishing and maintaining the shrine. The Court also dismissed the argument that long-standing encroachments gain legal protection, holding that every moment an illegal structure continues on a public road gives rise to a fresh cause of action for its removal.
The Bench clarified that allegations made by the third respondent against the petitioner regarding alleged misuse of property or other unrelated issues had no relevance to the present writ proceedings and could be raised separately before appropriate forums.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court directed the Greater Chennai Corporation to proceed with action under Section 128(1)(b) and Section 128(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act for removing the encroachment from the public road.
The Court ordered that the statutory notice already issued be acted upon and that the Commissioner pass appropriate orders and ensure implementation within the timelines fixed by the Court. The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was directed to be listed for reporting compliance.
Advocate B. Kaarvannan appeared for the petitioner, while Advocates E. C. Ramesh, Udaya Kumar, and S. Baskar represented the respondents.
Case Title:
A. Sarath v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai & Ors.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Religion
