No place for those who create ruckus before God, says Madras High Court

Madras HC - IAS Officer primarily gets punished with Imprisonment and secondly Fine for Contempt

The Constitution of India has given right to its citizens, to profess, practice and propagate religion in the Article 25 with subject to public order, morality and health along with those other provisions present in this part. There is a freedom which is given to people to practice religious affairs and establish institutions for charitable purposes. In the case of Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2015 SC 460, the court mentions about the object and purpose of enacting Article 26 which is to protect the rights which are conferred therein on a religious denomination or a section thereof. Though, the rights which have conferred in Article 26 are subject to public order, morality and health and doesn’t subject to any other provision of Part III of The Constitution. 

A complaint was appealed in the bench of Madras High Court, there the Thenkali sect mentions about the classification of Vaishnavaite Brahmins into Thenkali and Vandakali. The sects who dispense value to 4000 Tamil Divya Prabandhams of Alwars are Thenkali and Vandakali persists with Sanskrit Vedas. It was submitted that the rights in the temple are given only to the descendants of Thathachari clan and prayer of Sanskrit Vedas were performed by the descendants of Thathachari family belonging to Vandakali sect which was decided by the Supreme Court of India and Madras High Court. But the sect was prohibited from reciting prabandams instead allowed to be a part of the prayers with Thenkalais as worshippers. Vandakali sect created the perplexity in the customary prayers of Thenkalais. Consequently, the Vandakali sect hauled 10 persons of Thenkalais in the criminal proceeding, plea stated to examine the execution of the bond. In response, the court said that enacting Prabandhams or Vedaparanayam is to attain the lotus feet of the almighty and egoistic passageway of people have caused inconvenience to devotees cannot be snubbed. Justice R Mahadevan observed, who create ruckus in front of the lord doesn’t have any place inside of Sanctum Sanatorium. Whereas the Appellant is prepared to discuss the case in detail and court inclined to administer with the matter, issued notice to Respondents.


  • The tussle between these groups is going for two years.
  • Sub-collector had asked to both groups to furnish bonds for 25,000 each in recent tussle.
  • He asked both the parties to execute bonds to maintain peace and tranquility among devotees.
  • The priest from Vandakali obstructed the regular practice of Thenkali priest.

Edited by J. Madonna Jephi

Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje