The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel noted that the petitioner should have first filed a proper complaint before the appropriate investigating agency and then approach the court if no action had been taken. The court remarked that though the petitioner had sent a letter to the Chief Minister's cell, it was not enough to advance the petitioner's case.

“The procedure as enunciated under the BNSS 2023 will have to be followed. Merely issuing a letter to the Chief Minister's Cell and then filing a public interest litigation would not advance the cause of the petitioner herein. We would grant liberty to the petitioner to follow the procedure as established by law with respect to the same issue in proper manner,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a social activist, Raja SM, challenging a communication issued by the Additional Director General of Police, Idol Smuggling Prevention Division Office at Chennai, and to transfer the investigation in the idol smuggling case to the Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation.

The issue was with respect to the missing idols in the Arulmighu Kalatheeswarar Abirami Temple in Dindigul, also known as Abirami Amman Temple. The petitioner submitted that a necessary investigation had to be done regarding the missing two idols. He also submitted that he had sent a complaint to the Chief Minister's cell, which was then forwarded to the Additional Director General of Police. The ADGP issued a communication stating that the idols were not missing, were available in the temple, and that they were not being worshipped since they were damaged. This communication was challenged by the petitioner.

The court noted that the proper procedure to be followed in these cases was to lodge a complaint before the appropriate investigating agency and then approach the concerned jurisdictional magistrate or the court having jurisdiction to deal with the specific offence to seek further relief, in case no action is taken based on the complaint.

Thus, the court dismissed the plea, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a complaint before the appropriate authorities.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. K. Gokul

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. P. Senthil Government Pleader for Mr. D. Venkatesh Government Advocate Mr. N. Mohideen Basha

Case Title: Raja SM v State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 451

Case No: WP (MD) No 25928 of 2026