The Madras High Court recently articulated a critical legal precedent, emphasizing that sending a letter to the Chief Minister’s Cell cannot replace the established procedure for lodging a criminal complaint. This ruling was delivered in the context of a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the alleged disappearance of two idols from the Arulmighu Kalatheeswarar Abirami Temple in Dindigul.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel, clearly stated that proper legal channels must be followed to address such concerns. The court dismissed the PIL, underscoring the necessity for the petitioner to file a formal criminal complaint if there is an allegation of an offense. If appropriate authorities take no action, the complainant can escalate the matter to the jurisdictional Magistrate or the competent court, as outlined in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The court’s order, dated September 8, asserted, “Merely issuing a letter to the Chief Minister’s Cell and then filing a public interest litigation would not advance the cause of the petitioner herein.” The petitioner, in this case, alleged that the Karudalvar idol and Bala Durgai Amman idol had gone missing from the temple. To substantiate the claim, photographs were presented before the court.
Further, the petitioner sought to challenge a communication from January 22, 2026, issued by the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) of the Idol Smuggling Prevention Division. The petitioner requested that his representation to the ADGP be transferred to the CBI for a thorough investigation.
However, the court highlighted that the petitioner initially engaged with the Chief Minister’s Cell, which later forwarded the representation to the Idol Smuggling Prevention Division’s ADGP. The court advised the petitioner to file a formal criminal complaint with the relevant legal authority.
During the proceedings, the State informed the court that the idols in question were still present in the temple, albeit not in use for worship due to damage. This submission was noted by the Bench, which decided to dismiss the petition yet allowed the petitioner the liberty to pursue the matter through the correct legal channels. Importantly, the court clarified that its observations were not to influence any future investigations or court actions.
Legal representation for the petitioner was provided by Advocate K. Gokul. Government Pleader M.P. Senthil, representing the government, was assisted by Advocate D. Venkatesh for the first respondent, while Advocate N. Mohideen Basha appeared for the CBI.
