Throwing Footwear At Devotees A 'Grave Affront' To Faith, Must Be Dealt With Iron Hands: Madras High Court Orders Strict Action

Justice Victoria Gowri said that such acts could not be brushed aside as stray acts of hooliganism, as such acts not only affected the public order but also offended constitutional morality. The court also added that India's secular spirit did not require an indifference to religion but required the protection of every faith against unlawful insult and disturbance.

The court observed that the principle of fraternity embodied in the preamble of the Constitution obligated the State to ensure that sacred religious traditions were celebrated in peace, dignity, and mutual respect. The court also noted that though maintenance of public order was the duty of the executive, when disruption was apprehended, judicial directions were warranted.

“India's secular spirit does not require indifference to religion; it requires protection of every faith against unlawful insult and disturbance. The constitutional vision under Articles 25 and 26 reads with the fraternity ideal embodied in the Preamble obligates the State to ensure that sacred religious traditions are celebrated in peace, dignity and mutual respect. This Court is conscious that maintenance of public order lies primarily with the Executive. Yet where apprehended disruption threatens constitutional freedoms, judicial directions become warranted,” the court said.

The court highlighted that the right to practice religion included the right to a person's customary religious observances without humiliation, intimidation, or obstruction by disruptive elements.

“Religious freedom under Article 25 does not merely protect belief in abstraction. It protects meaningful exercise of faith through customs, observances, processions and rituals traditionally associated with that faith. The right to practice religion necessarily includes a corresponding right to perform established customary religious observances without humiliation, intimidation or obstruction by disruptive elements,” the court said.

The court also added that such throwing of chappals at devotees during a divine procession was a grave affront to public decency and had to be dealt with iron hands. The court observed that preservation of centuries-old civilisational festivals was itself a constitutional value.

“This Court is constrained to observe that throwing chappals upon devotees in a religious procession amounts to a grave affront to public decency, religious harmony and social fraternity and must be dealt with, to borrow a phrase apt to the occasion, with an iron hand. Miscreants attempting to mar a sacred event cannot claim indulgence under the guise of ordinary disorderly conduct. Preservation of a centuries-old civilizational festival is itself a constitutional value,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea seeking to take preventive action against miscreants who were throwing chappals on devotees during Lord Kallazhagar's ceremonial procession, which was part of the Chithirai festival.

The petitioner also circulated a visual recording depicting the incident during the previous year's festival. It was also submitted that, though representations were submitted, no effective preventive strategy was taken. Thus, seeking juridical intervention to protect the sanctity of the festival, the petitioner had approached the court.

The State listed out all the arrangements made by it for the maintenance of peace during the festival. It was submitted that 32 persons had already been detained as a preventive measure and assured a peaceful conduct of the procession.

The point for consideration before the court was whether it could issue a preventive direction to secure the sanctity of the Chithirai festival and protect the devotees' right to practice religion free from unlawful interference. Answering in the affirmative, the court said that religious freedom under Article 25 was not to merely protect belief in abstraction but to also protect meaningful exercise of faith through customs, observances, processions.

The court thus directed the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City to make deploy striking force vehicles, and monitor vulnerable spots using drone surveillance. The court added that any person found to throw chappals should be apprehended on the spot and asked police to intensity preventive and intelligence-based policing.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. J. Karthick

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. C. Satheesh Government Advocate (Civil) Mr. S. S. Manoj

Case Title: P Sundaravadivel v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 199

Case NO: W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2470 of 2026