Hindus needed an order from Madras HC to hold a feast on public land, but Christians responded with protests: Dindigul tensions explained

A disagreement over a piece of public land in Tamil Nadu has escalated, showing the tensions between religious communities. The issue began when a court gave permission for a Hindu community feast, and the verdict resulted in a massive protest by the local Christian community, who were upset by the decision.

What happened in Dindigul

On Monday,  4th November, the city of Dindigul faced major disruptions. More than 500 members of the Christian community from Panchampatti village held a large-scale “road blockade.” They were protesting against the conduct of an annadhanam, a traditional free food distribution that was being held on a piece of government-owned land.

This food distribution was part of a Hindu temple’s Kumbabishekam, which is a special consecration ceremony. The protest was specifically to show dissent against an order from the Madras High Court, which had permitted the Hindu feast to take place.

In the early hours of Monday, more than 500 Christian villagers, including women, gathered near the Dindigul collector’s office. They were unhappy with the decision that they intended to hand over their government-issued identity cards, like Aadhaar and voter IDs, as a sign of protest.

They blocked the main road leading to the collectorate and raised slogans condemning the district administration officials. The situation was tense, and more than 100 police personnel had to be deployed to manage law and order.

Later in the day, Dindigul’s District Collector, S. Saravanan, and the Superintendent of Police, A. Pradeep, held talks with the protesters. They managed to pacify the crowd, and after these discussions, the protest was withdrawn. However, this wasn’t the end of the matter. A senior police official confirmed that a case had been registered against 100 people for a related protest they had held at the event site on Sunday night, where they used black flags.

How the dispute started

The story begins with the local Hindu community in Panchampatti village planning their temple’s Kumbabishekam. Following the ceremony, they wanted to organise an annadhanam on a vacant piece of government land. This land just so happens to be located close to both the temple and a local church.

When they first asked for permission, the local authorities, including the police and revenue officials, said no. They denied the request, likely fearing it would cause trouble. 

However, a resident felt this was unfair and decided to challenge the rejection in court. The case went to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The police argued to the court that they refused permission because they were afraid it would create “law and order issues.” 

A clear judgment: Public land cannot be reserved for one religion

The court, led by Justice G.R. Swaminathan, looked at the case very carefully. He first asked the most important question: Who owns the land? He found that the open space was listed as a vacant site or gramamatham, which means it is owned by the Panchayat, and therefore, by the government.

Based on this, Justice Swaminathan gave a very important and clear judgment. He stated that if land is owned by the government, it should be available for all sections of society, no matter their religious background. He said, “A public ground should be available for the use of all communities or none.”

The judge held that if a public ground is open to the general public, you cannot exclude one particular group from using it. If the only reason for keeping them out is their religion, then it is a clear violation of Article 15 of the Constitution. The judge also said that the right to hold this feast comes under Article 25.

He flatly rejected the “law and order” excuse from the police and explained that it is the duty of the police to protect a person’s rights and deal with any issues that arise. They cannot simply ban an event to avoid trouble.

What the Christian community argued

During the hearing, the Christian community’s side was also heard. They argued that a stage was built on one side of the ground about 100 years ago. It was a long-standing convention, they said, that this stage would be used by the local Christian community for holding programs during the Easter festival. They argued that Hindus were never allowed to use that ground for any of their religious functions.

They even brought up a “peace committee meeting” from 2017, which had supposedly decided not to allow any new functions on the ground, only those that had been traditionally permitted for the past 100 years. This was also a key point of the protest on Sunday night: the protesters demanded that the public ground be called a ‘pascha ground’ (Easter ground) on the event invitations, which highlights their claim to it.

The judge did not accept this argument. He explained his reasoning very clearly: He could not accept that Christians are allowed to use the ground for Easter, but Hindus are not allowed to use the very same place for Annadhanam. He did add, of course, that when the Christian community is holding its Easter celebrations on a specific day, they alone should be allowed to use it, and anyone else asking for it on that same day should be refused.

The judge noted the village’s population was about 2,500 Christian families and only about 400 Hindu families, and said the police simply citing the Christian community’s opposition as the “law and order situation” was “a very sorry state of affairs.” The court threw out the rejection order and told the local authorities to grant permission for the feast.

A question of rights on government land

The High Court’s order was clear, but the protest that followed shows the deep tensions. This incident has raised a major question: Why did the Hindu community have to fight all the way to the High Court just to hold a one-day community feast on government land?

Even after they won a clear order from the court, they were met with a massive road-blocking protest. This is what many are calling a case of “exclusivity,” where one group feels they have sole rights over public property.

The key point here is that the land isn’t private church property. It’s public, government land. In principle, government property belongs to all citizens, Hindu, Christian, Muslim, or anyone else. Every community should be able to use it for their social and religious activities, as long as they are peaceful and don’t interfere with others.

In a diverse country like India, with so many religions living side-by-side, mutual respect is the only way forward.

There’s also the issue of the protest itself. While everyone has a right to protest, blocking main roads and stopping traffic causes huge problems for ordinary people just trying to get to work, go to the hospital, or live their lives. It punishes the general public for a dispute they have no part in.

Similar Case: The Bombay HC’s ruling on Vishalgadh Fort

This Dindigul incident isn’t the only one of its kind. A very similar case recently happened at another famous site in Tamil Nadus Thiruparankundram Murugam Temple Hill.

The hill is incredibly sacred to Hindus, as it’s one of the Arupadai Veedu, the Six Holy Abodes of Lord Murugan. The controversy started on 27th December, 2024, when some Muslims tried to bring goats and chickens to the Sikkandar Badusha Dargah, which is also located on the same hill, with the intention of slaughtering them.

Police and temple officials stopped them, declaring that animal sacrifice was not allowed in an area so close to the holy Murugan Temple. This led to a protest by more than 20 Muslims at the base of the hill. This dispute also ended up in the Madras High Court. And just like in the Dindigul case, the court had to step in to make things clear.

Justice Vijayakumar looked at all the government and archaeological records, some going back to 1908. He ruled that the site’s official and historical name is Thiruparankundram Hill. He said that attempts to call it “Sikkandar Malai” were mischievous and an attempt to change its real identity.

The court ruled that animal sacrifices are not permitted at the dargah. It noted there was no proof that this was an essential religious practice for them.

The court also clarified that while the Muslim community had rights to a small part of one area, Nellithoppu for prayers during Ramzan and Bakrid, the steps leading up to it, and to the Kasi Vishwanathar Temple on the hill, belong to the temple and cannot be blocked.

The common thread

Looking at both the Dindigul feast and the Thiruparankundram Hill case, a clear pattern seems to be emerging.

In both situations, the Hindu community’s right to use public land (Dindigul) or protect the sanctity of their holy site (Thiruparankundram) was challenged by another community. In Dindigul, it was a protest over a community feast. In Thiruparankundram, it was an attempt to perform animal sacrifice on a sacred Hindu hill.

And in both cases, the Hindu community had to rely on the High Court to step in and save their rights. The Dindigul incident shows that even a direct court order wasn’t enough to stop major protests, highlighting just how fragile the situation on the ground remains.

News