Public Ground Used By One Community Can't Be Denied To Other: Madras High Court Paves Way For Annadhanam, Calls It Fundamental Right

“The right to hold Annadhanam can even be brought within the scope of one's fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. When it comes to upholding fundamental rights, it is the duty of the local administration to stand in aid of the same. If any law and order problem arises, the same must be dealt with appropriately. The police should not choose the easy option of stifling the fundamental rights,” the court said.

Justice GR Swaminathan held that if a public land, belonging to the State, was available for use by the general public, a particular section should not be prevented from using the same on the sole ground of religion and the same would be violative of the Constitution.

“I hold that if a public ground belonging to the State is available for use of the general public, a particular section cannot be excluded from using the same. If the sole ground of exclusion is religion, it certainly would offend Article 15 of the Constitution of India,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea filed by a man for conducting Annadhanam in an open ground near the Kaliyamman Temple.

The man submitted that the authorities rejected his request to conduct annadhanam at the open ground near the temple and instead allotted him an alternative site on a public road. Challenging this rejection order, the man had approached the court.

On inquiry, the police informed the court that the request was rejected as it would give rise to law and order issues.

The court was informed that a stage was conducted on one side of the open ground almost 100 years ago and it was being used by the Christian community to conduct programs during Easter festival. The Christian community informed the court that Hindus were never allowed to use the ground in question for any religious purpose. It was also submitted that a peace committee meeting was held in 2017 where it was resolved not to conduct any function in the ground except the ones that have been permitted over 100 years.

The court noted that the open space in front of the stage belonged to the Panchayat and had been classified as vacant site/grama natham. The court noted that when the land in question belonged to the government, it should be available to all sections of the society irrespective of religious or communal background.

“A public ground should be available for the use of all communities or none. I cannot accept the submission that while Christians can use the ground on Easter but Hindus cannot conduct Annadhanam in the very same place. It is not as if on the occasion of Easter, the Hindus want to conduct Annadhanam or any other event in the very same ground. I would go to the extent of observing that when it comes to Easter celebrations, the Christian community alone should be allowed to use the ground. If anybody else seeks permission to use the ground on the said occasion, it should be refused,” the court said.

The court also noted that the village had predominantly Christian families (2500 families) and had only 400 Hindu families. The court noted that since the Christians opposed to holding the event, the police cited it as a law and order situation. Valling it a “sorry state of affairs”, the court highlighted that in every religious event, there must be participation from other religions also.

“It is a very sorry state of affairs. In every religious event, there must be participation from the other religionists also. When a Christian friend celebrates Christmas, I should greet him first. I remember an occasion when a Muslim friend prepared only vegetarian Nonbu Kanji so that I can have the same. Needless to say, I relished it. Such is the beauty of our culture. Such interactions alone will ensure inter-religious harmony. Unless such cultural and civilisational unity is demonstrated in practice, there will not be peace in society,” the judge said.

Thus, the court directed the Tahsildar to permit the petitioner to conduct Annadhanam in the open ground. The court directed the petitioner to make necessary arrangements and made it clear that the ground should be handed over back in the very same condition in which it was entrusted.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. Manikandan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader, Mr. M. Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader, Mr. A. Albert James, Government Advocate (crl.side), Mr.A.John Vincent

Case Title: K Rajamani v. The Joint Commissioner and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

Case No: W.P(MD)No.30834 of 2025