“If a large church is proposed to be constructed in the vicinity of a temple, mala fide intentions cannot be ruled out. Since India is a secular nation and a pluralistic society, religious amity has to be preserved, especially when an overwhelming majority of Hindus oppose the construction of a church in close proximity to the temple,” said the Madras High Court.

A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan made the observations while granting an interim injunction restraining the president of the CSI Christ King Church on Kalapatti Main Road in Coimbatore city from constructing a church in close proximity to a Mariamman Temple and on a piece of land classified as a public road in revenue records.

The Judges also recorded in their order that during the course of arguments in the case, the writ petitioner N. Balasubramaniyam’s counsel, D. Baskar, had claimed that “certain fundamentalist organisations have become emboldened” following the change of government headed by Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and posters had sprung across the State calling for construction of churches in every village.

He also said that the Legislative Assembly Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar, who claims to have distributed thousands of free copies of the Bible, quoted biblical verses in his inaugural address to the Legislative Assembly. He noted that the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam party did not raise any objection when the Leader of the Opposition, Udhayanidhi Stalin, called for “the annihilation of Sanatana Dharma” in his address to the Assembly.

“Since there has been a disruption in the political ecosystem, according to the petitioner’s counsel, the construction of a church which was put on hold has been resumed recently... The political scenario may change. But so long as the position of law remains what it is, it is our duty to give effect to the same,” the Judges wrote in their order granting interim injunction.

The Bench pointed out the Mariamman Temple in Kalapatti had been in existence for more than 100 years. Of the approximately 1,000 families residing in the vicinity, 950 of them were Hindus, 15 were Muslims, and a very few were Christians. Nevertheless, in 2010, the Coimbatore Collector granted permission for the construction of a church on land close to the existing temple.

Hence, in 2011, the temple worshippers filed a civil suit against the proposed construction before the Coimbatore District Munsif Court. While the suit was pending, the Collector and the Coimbatore North Revenue Divisional Officer issued orders in May 2023 granting police protection for the construction of the church. However, when a law and order problem arose, the Collector issued a stop construction order in June 2023.

The Church of South India (CSI) filed a writ petition in 2024 against the Collector’s order and Justice M. Dhandapani disposed of it on April 28, 2026, granting liberty to CSI to file a fresh application for construction after the disposal of the 2011 civil suit. Thereafter, Mr. Balasubramaniyam filed the present writ petition in May 2026, challenging the 2023 orders passed by the Collector and the RDO.

Observing the constitutional right to practise, profess and propagate any religion is subject to public order. Justice Swaminathan wrote, “Coimbatore is a communally sensitive city. It witnessed bomb blasts and bloody religious riots. The proposed church would come up within a stone’s throwaway distance from the existing Mariamman Temple. There are only a handful of Christian families. If a large church is proposed to be constructed in the vicinity of the Mariamman Temple, mala fide intentions cannot be ruled out.”

He went on to state: “The counsel for the petitioner hints at the possibility of the new building being a centre of conversion activity. We are a secular nation. We are a pluralist society. Religious amity has to be preserved. If a religious right is established, then it is the duty of the State to aid in its enforcement... 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 also clarified the “considerations could have been different if the construction were on patta (private) land whose title is beyond dispute and there is no religious structure belonging to other communities in the immediate vicinity or if there is no opposition. In the case on hand, the revenue record indicates that the site is a public road. The location is too close to an old temple. There is also vigorous opposition.”

The Judges further said, “we should not be understood as holding that if there is opposition, the State must submit to it. Far from it. If right is established or if the opposition is found to be unreasonable, then the State should go to any extent to uphold the right.”