(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2026, conduct an appropriate enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to all persons concerned, examine the legality of the alteration of the name of Sri ParaparadesiSwamigal into Sri VelandiParaparadesiSwamigal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, including restoration of the original traditional name if the alteration is found to be unauthorised, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.)

1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a mandamus directing the first respondent, namely, the District Collector, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2026 in respect of a Madam/Temple associated with Arulmigu Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent has unilaterally altered the name of the Madam/Temple by putting up a new flex board, naming the Madam/Temple as “Thavathiru Velandi Paraparadesi Swamigal Jeevasamathi”, whereas the actual name of the Madam/Temple is “Srila Sri Paraparadesi Swamigal Sithar Peedam”.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent has unilaterally altered the name of the Madam/Temple, contrary to the name recorded in the H.R. & C.E. Register, with a view to create disharmony among the devotees belonging to different communities in Tirunelveli.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent, on the other hand, submits that there has been no alteration and that the name board, which is situated outside and opposite the Madam/Temple, has been in place for a long time. Reference was made to an order of this Court in the case of D.Arul Selvan Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai and others, dated 10.03.2026, rendered in W.P.(MD) No.6311 of 2026, wherein the order of the Board of Trustees of Arulmigu Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, was challenged and a direction was sought to restore the photograph of “Thavathiru Velandi Paraparadesi Siddhar”. While passing the order dated 10.03.2026 in the said Writ Petition, this Court, in paragraphs 4 and 8, has observed as under:-

                   “4.In view thereof, since the installation was without the permission of the board, an enquiry was conducted and after enquiry now, the picture which is newly installed of Velandi Paraparadesi Siddhar, is directed to be removed. Since the picture was installed, claiming that it was without permission from the board, suddenly the picture was removed. Aggrieved thereby earlier the petitioner filed W.P(md)No.36487 of 2025, in which, this Court again directed them to conduct an enquiry and pass orders thereon. Pursuant to which, the impugned order is once again passed refusing permission to install the picture and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

                   .....

                   8.The picture of the temple in which, both the photographs are placed on either side and the picture of the present position whereby one photograph alone is there on one side are annexed 1 and 2 of this order. It can be seen that both are photo frames which is now placed. Both sides cannot have any right to install the same in a traditional temple. Keeping such pictures of Siddhar, is a matter of faith and it is not justiciable before the Court as if it is a matter of right. If all the devotees are ad idem and cooperate with each other and install the pictures of both the siddhars or any other Siddhar also, the Court will not intervene and substitute its opinion to that of the devotees of the temple or that of the department. However, when one picture is allowed to remain and one picture alone is taken out, then the question as to the discrimination arises. If the installation of the picture amounts to a problem for devotees, then the decision of the department in ordering to remove the same cannot be taken exception to. But when it is argued that it sends a message about caste, then the issue has also to be considered by the respondent.”

5. Ultimately, this Court, in paragraphs 9 and 10, has ordered as under:-

                   “9.Therefore, I am of the view that once again the matter should be considered by the 2nd respondent, the following questions can be decided by the 2nd respondent:

                   (i) whether the parties can claim any customary right to install the pictures of the Siddhar.

                   (ii)Even if they have customary rights, keeping the picture of one Siddhar and removing the picture of other Siddhar, whether it sends out signals relating to caste bias on the part of the temple administration.

                   (iii)if it is going to create disharmony among the devotees, whether it would be advisable to remove both the pictures.

                   10.The answers to the question to be arrived at by giving due opportunity to the petitioner herein, to the Trust Board which is administered the temple and the devotees of the other Siddhar also. The writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:

                   (i)The representation of the petitioner dated 03.02.2025 shall be treated as an application under section 63 of the Act. The Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli, shall issue notice to the petitioner, to the Trust board, to any other person interested and would like to intervene on behalf of the devotees of the other Siddhar, namely Velandi Paraparadesi.

                   (ii)The enquiry shall be conducted and the aforesaid question shall be expressly answered and it should be kept in mind above all the customs, the constitutional priority not to discriminate among the caste, especially untouchability that is expressly prohibited in any form should also be considered in accordance with law.

                   (iii)The aforesaid excise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order. The petitioner can also submit a fresh representation updating with all the subsequent developments and produce such documents in their favor.”

6. The Temple and Madam, which are religious institutions within the meaning of Section 6(20) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, are not intended to foster communal disharmony and thereby tear apart the social fabric of society after the Constitution of India came into force with effect from 26.01.1950.

7. The Preamble to the Constitution of India also states that having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens justice, liberty and equality and to promote among them fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation, the Constitution was adopted and enacted. The expression “sovereign democratic republic” was substituted with “sovereign socialist secular democratic republic” vide the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, with effect from 03.01.1977, by Section 2 thereof. All citizens are to be governed by the cherished objects and ideals embodied in the Preamble to the Constitution of India.

8. That apart, Article 51A in Part IVA of the Constitution of India, casts certain fundamental duties upon every citizen of India. These duties apply not only to individuals in their private capacity but also to those who are discharging public functions and are receiving salaries from the State.

9. Article 51A(e) specifically casts a duty upon every citizen to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India, transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities and to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.

10. Article 51A(h) also casts a duty upon every citizen to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. Similarly, Article 51A(i) casts a duty upon every citizen to safeguard public property and to abjure violence.

11. The mandate contained in Article 51A is intended to be followed by every citizen, whether an individual acting in his private capacity or while discharging official functions. The ideals in the Preamble to the Constitution also have to be kept in view by every citizen as the Nation moves forward.

12. Therefore, there is no scope for any violence, disharmony or disrespect, particularly in a place of worship, by anyone. Therefore, I direct the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, to ensure that the name entered in the Register of the Madam/Temple is displayed in the temple premises. Consequently, 'The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.' is suo motu impleaded as the fourth respondent in this Writ Petition.

13. I also direct the first respondent, namely, the District Collector, to issue appropriate directions to the Revenue Officials to ascertain whether there is any violence on account of the complaints made by the petitioner against the rival group. If desired, the first respondent, namely, the District Collector, may also request the District Superintendent of Police to deploy adequate police personnel to ensure that harmony is maintained in the Madam/Temple and that the Madam/Temple is used only as a place of worship and not as a place for creating or festering any communal disharmony or prejudice.

14. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall no order as to costs.