No Right To Pollute Water Bodies In Name Of Religion: Madras High Court On Discarding Clothes In River During Death Rituals
story The court also added that though believers had the right to do something which was spiritually beneficial to them, such right should not violate the rights of others in society. The court highlighted that the freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution was subject to public health.
The Madras High Court recently observed that no person had a right to pollute waterbodies in the guise of performing religious rituals for the departed. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313]“No one has the right to pollute a water body even in the name of religion. This can be taken as an axiomatic proposition. If statutory backing has to be shown, one can straightaway cite Section 36 of the Tamil...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Madras High Court recently observed that no person had a right to pollute waterbodies in the guise of performing religious rituals for the departed. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313]
“No one has the right to pollute a water body even in the name of religion. This can be taken as an axiomatic proposition. If statutory backing has to be shown, one can straightaway cite Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 which prohibits pollution of water courses. More important is Section 24 of The Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act, 1974,” the court said.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi made the observation after noting the excess waste that was being dumped in the Tamirabarani river by devotees who came there to perform rituals for the departed. The court directed the authorities to ensure that the river does not get polluted through the rituals. However, noting that the issue involved the religious sentiments of Hindus, the court was not inclined to pass any orders without hearing the stakeholders.
“Believers can do what is spiritually beneficial to them provided it has no adverse implication for ecology and does not violate the rights of the other members of the society. Article 25 of the Constitution makes the freedom to practise religion subservient to public health. Tamirabarani has been a perennial river catering to the drinking water needs of crores of people. It cannot be allowed to be polluted,” the court said.
The court was dealing with a writ petition filed by Sivanupandian challenging the notice issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer (WRO) with respect to an encroachment proceeding. The petitioner had also sought directions to the authorities not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of Anandha Vilas Mandapam in Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
The petitioner was issued an eviction order under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, asking him to vacate the mandapam. He filed a writ questioning the same, which was disposed of by the court, giving him liberty to appeal against the order as per the Act. Following the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector, Tirunelveli. While the appeal was pending, he was issued with a notice by the Assistant Executive Engineer, which was challenged in the present plea.
While the court noted that the writ petition was not maintainable during the pendency of the appeal, the court noted the submissions made by the authorities regarding the devotees coming to the Tamirabarani river in large numbers to perform obsequies.
The court also interacted with an activist, Moorthy, who was taking an interest in cleaning the river by removing the discarded clothes and articles left by the devotees. During the interaction, the court was informed that more than a tonne of clothes was being discarded by the devotees every day.
The court also noted that discarded clothes, especially polyester, often ended up being caught in the riverbed and became a breeding ground for bacteria like e coli, and posed a serious health hazard. The court also noted that two kinds of turtles – Indian Black Turtle and Indian Flapshell Turtle, which were particular to the river, got enmeshed in the clothes and suffocated to death. The court also noted that photo frames, which were thrown into the rivers, posed a serious threat to marine life due to broken glass.
Noting the alarming statistics, the court said that it was necessary for the administration to educate the masses. The court added that every person had a fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution to protect and improve the natural environment.
However, the court was not inclined to condemn the practice of the people as one of superstition. The court thought it fit to pass orders and directed the District Collector of Tirunelveli to make an announcement to the public with respect to the pending pleas. The court added that any religious body or activist could intervene and make their submissions, and also directed the District Administration to submit proposals that would provide a final solution to the problem.
Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Ramasamy S
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Kannan Govt Advocate, M/s. V. R. Shanmuganathan, N. Sharmiya
Case Title: Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
Case No: WP(MD) No 18560 of 2026