Madras High Court orders return of seized Hindu idols: 'State can't act on superstition over unnatural deaths'

Madras High Court

• Madras HC: State can't remove idols from private homes based on superstition
• Court mandates return of idols, highlights peaceful private worship rights.
• Private worship shouldn't disturb public; unauthorised construction handled separately

Did our AI summary help?

The Madras High Court has said that the State cannot act on the basis of superstition or unscientific public fears, while dealing with a case in which local authorities removed Hindu idols from a private residence in north Chennai after residents linked their worship to a series of “unnatural deaths” in the neighbourhood.

According to a report by Bar and Bench, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy made it clear that peaceful worship within one’s own premises cannot be curtailed merely because a section of the public attributes misfortune to religious practices.

Observing that the State must not surrender to such beliefs, the judge said, “The State Authorities cannot give in to such superstitions and false beliefs.” He added that attributing harm to deities or idols has no basis, noting, “God or an idol will never harm any human being, and such beliefs are only superstitions and cannot be said to be in tune with the principles of ‘Bhakthi’ or ‘Science’.”

The case arose after A Karthik installed idols of goddess Sivasakthi Dhakshiswari, along with Vinayagar and Veerabhadran, inside his residential premises. While the worship was primarily private, neighbours and other willing devotees were allowed to participate.

Following complaints from residents claiming that deaths in the locality were connected to the installation and worship of the idols, local authorities removed them.

In an earlier order dated April 3, 2025, the High Court had rejected the authorities’ reasoning, holding that their action was “neither supported by law nor by any principle of ‘Bhakthi’ or ‘Science’.”

The Court also recalled that the Constitution places a duty on the State to promote scientific temper among citizens. It directed that the idols be returned to Karthik, subject to conditions that there should be no loudspeakers, noise pollution, disturbance to neighbours, or collection of money from the public.

When the idols were not returned, Karthik moved a contempt petition, alleging disobedience of the Court’s order. His counsel also informed the Court that local residents were allegedly threatening violence and damage to property if the idols were reinstalled, and sought police protection.

The State, however, argued that Karthik had permission only to build a house and had effectively converted it into a temple, with poojas allegedly conducted at odd hours, including midnight. A private respondent echoed these claims, alleging public worship and collection of money.

Justice Chakravarthy noted that the idols admittedly belonged to the petitioner and directed their immediate restoration, which was carried out through the Tahsildar’s office.

While closing the contempt petition, the Court clarified that any unauthorised construction could be dealt with separately under law. At the same time, it said that private worship must not disturb the public, highlighting that governance driven by superstition has no place in a constitutional framework.