On 22nd January, the Madras High Court ordered the removal of a roadside Christian shrine in Chennai. The court ruled that public roads cannot be occupied by any structure, even if it has religious significance. In the judgment, the court said streets and roads are meant for public use and do not carry any religious character.
Encroachment Can't Be Permitted On Public Street Even If It Has Religious Character: Madras HC#MadrasHighCourt #Encroachment https://t.co/xzC4frLR4Q
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) January 27, 2026
The case arose from a writ petition filed by A Sarath, who purchased a property in Thiru Vi Ka Nagar, Chennai, in November 2024. Sarath told the court that before purchasing the property, he had physically inspected the premises and noticed a raised structure adjacent to the entrance. He was informed that the structure was temporary in nature and would be removed.
However, while carrying out repair works and making preparations for a housewarming ceremony, Sarath discovered that a statue of Mother Mary had been installed within the structure, converting it into a shrine. He contended that the shrine obstructed the main entrance of his house and caused inconvenience to pedestrians using the public pathway. He further alleged that electricity was being illegally drawn from a nearby house to power lighting and amplification equipment at the site.
After his representation dated 13th September 2025 failed to elicit any action from civic authorities, Sarath approached the High Court seeking a direction to remove the encroachment.
Justice V Lakshminarayana noted that the shrine stood on about eight square metres of land classified as “sarkar poramboke street,” which is public road property. The court said that the nature of the structure does not matter, and any encroachment on public land must be removed.
Claim of long standing religious presence
A private individual, R Daniel, got himself impleaded in the proceedings, stating that he had installed the shrine in 1995 and that it had functioned for nearly three decades as a place of faith, hope, and emotional strength for residents of the locality. He argued that no complaints had been raised against the shrine until the petitioner purchased the property and claimed that its removal would hurt religious sentiments and disturb communal harmony.
Daniel also alleged that the petition was selective and motivated, pointing to another structure used for worship by Hindus in the area, and made allegations regarding the petitioner’s use of his premises for illegal activities. The court clarified that such issues could be taken up separately under the law.
Referring to earlier rulings of the Supreme Court of India, the judge said religious sentiments cannot be used to protect structures built on public roads. Under Section 128 of the Local Bodies Act, the court said it is the duty of the Municipal Commissioner to clear encroachments from public places after due notice.
Since notices had already been issued, the court directed the Greater Chennai Corporation to proceed with removing the shrine, holding that the petitioner was entitled to relief as the structure stood on a public road.
