R.Badrinarayanan Vs T.BharathiDevarajulu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

R.Badrinarayanan Vs T.BharathiDevarajulu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the public interest litigation under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from performing the consecration of Sri Narasingaperumal Temple, Vallam Village, Thanjavur District, on 08.02.2026 by following the Vaikanasa Agama, substituting Tenkalai Namam with Vadagalai Namam, performing Prayaschithas and consecrating per Pancharathra Agama, should be entertained by the writ court. +2 more

Court's answer

On perusal of the records, the Court was not inclined to entertain the public interest litigation, for the reasons set out in paragraphs (i) to (v).

Ratio / Principle

If there is any dispute as to the nature/denomination of the temple, it has to be ascertained only by establishing the right before the Civil Court; the writ court will not adjudicate it.

Key takeaways

The reason given by the petitioner (paucity of time, producing only the pith and substance of available materials) is not sufficient and adequate for interfering with the religious ceremony scheduled to be held on 08.02.2026 without hearing the other side.ratio¶44
Filing a writ petition at the eleventh hour is not the remedy for a prayer of this nature.ratio¶44
If the petitioner is having any substantial material in support of his claim, he has to place the same before the authority concerned and work out his remedy in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Madurai Bench), W.P.(MD) No.3436 of 2026, Dr.G.Jayachandran, J. (speaking) with K.K.Ramakrishnan, J., 06.02.2026 — Public interest litigation under Article 226 by one R.Badrinarayanan seeking mandamus to forbear the respondents (including HR&CE officials and archakas/trustees) from performing the consecration of the over-1000-year-old Sri Narasingaperumal Temple, Vallam Village, Thanjavur District, scheduled for 08.02.2026 by following the “Vaikanasa Agama”, and seeking substitution back of the “Tenkalai Namam” with the “Vadagalai Namam” wherever replaced under the guise of renovation, performance of Prayaschithas, and consecration per the “Pancharathra Agama” claimed to be followed in the temple from time immemorial; petitioner alleged the temple belongs to the Vadagalai denomination and that its denominational character changed after Balalayam, knowledge whereof reached him only on 03.02.2026, prompting a Gmail representation on 04.02.2026 and the PIL on 05.02.2026. HELD (dismissing the writ petition, no costs, connected W.M.P.(MD) No.2848 of 2026 closed): (i) any dispute as to the nature/denomination of the temple must be ascertained only by establishing the right before the Civil Court; (ii) the representation was sent to the authorities only on 04.02.2026; (iii) a PIL seeking writ-court interference with a religious ceremony scheduled for 08.02.2026, filed at the last minute on 05.02.2026 with insufficient materials, gave no adequate reason for interfering without hearing the other side; filing a writ petition at the eleventh hour is not the remedy for a prayer of this nature; and (iv) if the petitioner has substantial material, he must place it before the authority concerned and work out his remedy in accordance with law.

W.P.(MD) No.3436 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 06.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

W.P.(MD) No.3436 of 2026 and

W.M.P.(MD) No.2848 of 2026

R.Badrinarayanan

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.T.Bharathi Devarajulu

2.The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admin. Dept. Uttamar Gandhi Road Chennai-600 034

3.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admin. Dept. Thanjavur District

4.The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admin. Dept. Thanjavur District

Page 1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.3436 of 2026

5.The Inspector Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admin. Dept. Vallam, Thanjavur District

6.Raman Bhattachariyar Swamy

7.Aravamuthan Bhattacharya Swamy

8.Thirunangur Prathivathi Bayangaram Thirumalachariyar Swamy ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any manner performing the blasphemous consecration of Sri Narasingaperumal Temple, Vallam Village, Thanjavur District, on 8-2-2026 by following the “Vaikanasa Agama” with a further direction to them to substitute the “Tenkalai Namam” with that of the “Vadagalai Namam” in all the places in the “Temple” wherever the “Vadagalai Namam” has been replaced under the guise of renovation, perform Prayaschithas and thereafter perform the consecration by following the “Pancharathra Agama” which is followed in that temple from time.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Vijaya Raghavan For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader for R2 to R5

Page 2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.3436 of 2026

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

This public interest litigation is filed by one R.Badrinarayanan seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from performing consecration of Sri Narasingaperumal Temple, Vallam Village, Thanjavur District, scheduled to be held on 08.02.2026.

2. The allegation raised by the petitioner is that the subject Temple, which is aged more than 1000 years, comes under Vadagalai denomination. But, under the guise of renovation works, the respondents are trying to perform consecration of the Temple by following Vaikanasa Agama and to substitute Tenkalai Namam with that of Vadagalai Namam in all places in the Temple, against the Pancharathra Agama, which is being followed in the Temple from time immemorial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 04.02.2026, having found that after Balalayam, the character of denomination of the Temple has been changed, which came to know to the petitioner only on 03.02.2026, the petitioner so immediately made a representation to the authorities concerned through Gmail seeking to restrain

Page 3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.3436 of 2026

them from converting the convention and nature of denomination of the Temple. Since there was no response, the petitioner has filed the present public interest litigation on the next day i.e., on 05.02.2026.

3. On perusal of the records, we are not inclined to entertain this public interest litigation for the following reasons:

(i) The nature of denomination of the Temple has to be ascertained, if there is any dispute, only by establishing the right before the Civil Court.

(ii) The representation of the petitioner, which is now sought to be considered by this Court, was sent to the authorities concerned only on 04.02.2026.

(iii) The public interest litigation seeking interference of

this Court into the religious ceremony of consecration of the Temple, which is scheduled to be held on 08.02.2026, has been filed at the last minute i.e., on 05.02.2026 that too with insufficient materials.

Page 4 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.3436 of 2026

(iv) The reason stated by the petitioner for filing this public interest litigation with insufficient materials is that though there are laborious materials to consider his case, due to paucity of time, he is not able to place all the materials and therefore, he has produced only pith and substance of the materials before this Court.

(v) The reason given by the petitioner is not sufficient and adequate for interfering with the religious ceremony scheduled to be held on 08.02.2026 without hearing the other side. If at all the petitioner is having any substantial material in support of his claim, he has to place the same before the authority concerned and has to work out his remedy in accordance with law. Filing a writ petition at the eleventh hour is not the remedy for the prayer of this nature. Hence, for these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this public interest litigation.

_____________ Page 5 of 8_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.3436 of 2026

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]

06.02.2026

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

krk

To:

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admin. Dept., Uttamar Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admin. Dept., Thanjavur District.

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admin. Dept., Thanjavur District.

4.The Inspector, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admin. Dept.,

Page 6 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.3436 of 2026

Vallam, Thanjavur District.

_____________ Page 7 of 8_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.3436 of 2026

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

krk

W.P.(MD) No.3436 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) No.2848 of 2026

06.02.2026

_____________ Page 8 of 8_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis