'Coimbatore Communally Sensitive' : Madras High Court Stops Construction Of Church Near Temple

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan held that mala fide intentions could not be ruled out when a large church was proposed to be constructed near a temple, despite opposition from the majority Hindu community. 

"Coimbatore is a communally sensitive city. It witnessed bomb blasts and bloody religious riots. The proposed church would come up within a stone's throw from the existing Mariyamman Temple. There are only a handful of Christian families. If a large church is proposed to be constructed in the vicinity of the Mariyamman Temple, mala fide intentions cannot be ruled out," the court observed.

The court also noted that the Church was proposed to be constructed on a public road. The court thus noted that the authorities should not have permitted the construction of the church on a road, when there was vigorous opposition from the Hindu community. The court added that if there was a right and there was unreasonable opposition, the State could go to any extent to uphold the right. However, in the present case, the court opined that there was no such right to costruct church in the road.

"Considerations could have been different if the construction is on a patta 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, 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 court noted.

 The court was hearing a plea filed by Balasubramaniyam N challenging the police protection granted by the District Collector, Coimbatore, and the RDO to the President of the CSI Christ King Church to construct the church in the proposed site.

Seeking an urgent intervention of the court, the petitioner had approached the vacation court. The petitioner argued that after the change of government headed by Chief Minister Joseph Vijay, certain fundamentalist organisations had become emboldened. The petitioner also expressed concern that the Speaker had distributed thousands of free copies of the Bible, and had even quoted Biblical verses in his inaugural address.

The petitioner also argued that when the Leader of Opposition, Udayanidhi Stalin, made a statement calling for eradication of Sanatana Dharma, the same was not objected to by the new government and, in fact, one of the MLAs of the new government had said that annihilation of Sanatana Dharma was a policy of the ruling party. The petitioner thus argued that there was an urgency for court interference in the construction of the church, considering the disruption in the political ecosystem in the State.

The court noted that when the church had previously approached the court against the order of the District Collector to discontinue construction, the High Court had taken note of the pending civil suit and had held that once the civil suit was decided, the parties would be at liberty to make a fresh application for construction. 

The court thus observed that a prima facie case had been made out and irreparable hardship and loss would be caused to social amity if the interim order is not granted. 

Thus, considering the balance of convenience and the earlier order of the court, the court was inclined to order an interim injunction against the construction of the church, and to maintain the status quo. The court, therefore, ordered accordingly.

Counsel for Petitioner: M/s.D.Baskar E.Ashok Kumar K.B.Rohitih Pooja J B.Sankara Narayanan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal Addl. Govt. Pleader, Mr. R. Muniyapparaj App

Case Title: Balasubramaniyam N v The Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 266

Case No: WP No. 20267 of 2026