Madras HC restrains church construction, flags malafide intention

Two-judge bench says vigorous opposition by Hindus who are a majority can’t be brushed aside
It said the collector and RDO ought not to have called for police protection because the construction could not come up for 13 years on account of the pendency of the civil suit
It said the collector and RDO ought not to have called for police protection because the construction could not come up for 13 years on account of the pendency of the civil suit(Photo: IANS)
Updated on
2 min read

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the construction of a church at a village in Coimbatore until the civil suit on the issue is disposed of, stating that irreparable hardship and loss would be caused to social amity if an interim injunction is not issued.

The interim relief was granted on a petition filed by Balasubramaniyam N of Kalapatty in the district, praying to quash a communication of the district collector to provide police security for the construction and direct the collector, revenue divisional officer and the superintendent of police to remove illegal constructions on a site which is government poramboke land and public road.

Stating that Coimbatore is a communally sensitive city, a division bench of justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan said if a church is proposed to be constructed in the vicinity of the Mariamman temple, malafide intentions cannot be ruled out.

“The counsel for the petitioner hints at the possibility of the new building being a centre of conversion activity,” said the bench while sitting during the recent vacation.

“When Hindus constitute an overwhelming majority, and they vigorously oppose the construction of a church in the immediate vicinity of the temple, then, the authority must not casually brush the objection aside,” the bench said in the order.

It said the collector and RDO ought not to have called for police protection because the construction could not come up for 13 years on account of the pendency of the civil suit, even though permission was granted in 2010.

Pointing out that the revenue records indicate the site is a public road, and it is too close to an old temple, and there is also vigorous opposition, the bench said it is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out.

Referring to certain submissions of the petitioner regarding change of regime in the state that may tilt the scale in favour of the construction, the bench commented that the political scenario may change, but so long as the position of law remains as it is, it is their duty to give it effect.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com