IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. _______________ of 2025 Rangarajan Narasimhan M/55 Sanathana Dharmam/Sri Vaishnavam “Arangan Thirumutram” Kollidam Road 400m west of Andavan Ashramam Srirangam, Trichy – 620 006 …Petitioner Versus 1. The Director General of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No. _______________ of 2025

Rangarajan Narasimhan M/55
Sanathana Dharmam/Sri Vaishnavam
“Arangan Thirumutram” Kollidam Road
400m west of Andavan Ashramam
Srirangam, Trichy – 620 006
…Petitioner Versus
1. The Director General of Police
Tamil Nadu Police Department
Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004
2. The Inspector General of Police Idol Wing CID
Police Training College No.2,
Natesan Salai, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Idol Wing CID
Police Training College No.2,
Natesan Salai, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083
4. The Station House Officer/Inspector of Police
Idol Wing CID
Police Training College No.2,
Natesan Salai, Ashok Nagar,
Chennai – 600 083
… Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF RANGARAJAN NARASIMHAN
I, Rangarajan Narasimhan, Sanathana Dharma, Sri Vaishnavam, aged about 55 years, son of Shri P. R. Narasimhan, residing at “Arangan Thirumutram”, Kollidam Road, 400m west of Andavan Ashramam, Srirangam, Trichy – 620 006, now temporarily come down to Chennai, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
1) I am a person deeply interested in the preservation of the sanctity of Sanathana Dharma religions and religious institutions and to preserve the glory of the great Indian Heritage, Culture, Monuments, Practice, and related objectives.
2) I am also a person who is deeply interested in protecting and upholding the Law of the land and to strive to ensure that Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India is preserved and protected.
3) I respectfully submit that I have filed a number of public interest litigation petitions espousing the cause where the rights and sentiments of followers of Sanathana Dharma Religion grouped under the umbrella of Hinduism are being trampled upon by governmental action or inaction in contravention to Article 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution of India.
4) I am a person who strives to leave no stone unturned to bring to the knowledge of the Temple of Justice the information that is required which are crucial to delivering Justice. Several orders of this Hon’ble Court had lauded my efforts in providing timely and just information and correct solution to this Hon’ble Court.
5) I submit that the details contained in the affidavit have been collated out of my own self acts and from the enquiries made with the concerned departments, Bhaktas, and citizens. I am an income tax assesse and my Permanent Account Number is AEGPR8372E. My annual income is about Rs. 2,50,000/-. My Aadhar Number is 6928 4841 9368. I hereby undertake to pay any cost that may be awarded if this Writ Petition is found to be frivolous. I am filing this Writ Petition as Public Interest Litigation.
6) I submit that I am very well aware of the facts and circumstances of the case.
SHRI DEVARAJA SWAMY TEMPLE, KANCHEEPURAM
7) I submit that Shri Devaraja Swamy Temple, Kancheepuram is a renowned Tempe of Sriman Narayana is noted alike for its historic and religious importance.
8) I submit Shri Devaraja Swamy Temple, Kancheepuram, hereinafter referred to as the Temple, is situated in Little Kancheepuram and is one of the 108 Divya Desams of Sri Vaishnava Sampradhaya. The temple is also called Hasthigiri
(as it is located on a small hillock), is a temple dedicated to Sriman Narayana.
Swamy Ramanuja, who was born in Sriperumbudur a few miles from the Temple, one of the greatest Sri Vaishnava Acharya had performed his Kainkaryam (holy selfless service to Lord as a Servant) in this temple.
9) I submit that the Temple is also called as “Perumal Koil”, and is considered to be one of the three holiest Sri Vaishnava Divya Desams, the other two being Koil (Srirangam) and Thirumalai (Tirupati).
10) I submit that the temple is governed by Padma Samhita of Sri Pancharatra
Agama Shastra. The Temple is a Denominational Temple belonging to Sri Vaishnava Sampradhaya (religious denomination) and is protected by Article 26 of the Constitution of India.
11) I submit that the Temple is governed by a scheme settled by Appeal No. 175 of 1934 on 17.01.1941 by this Hon’ble High Court, filed against the decree of the District Court of Chengalpattu in O.S. 1 of 1928.
12) I submit that as per the scheme, the Hon’ble Division Bench comprising of Justice Wordsworth and Justice Patanjali Sastri, the temple is required to be administered by a paid Executive Trustee, and two honorary trustees. Extract from the scheme is reproduced below for ready reference:
3. The Devasthanam shall be administered by a paid executive trustee, who shall be appointed by the Board and by two honourary trustees, who shall be elected in the manner laid down hereafter.
4. No person shall be appointed as executive trustee unless he is
1. A Smartha or Madhwa Brahmin
2. Aged not less than 30 years and not more than 62 years on the date of appointment
3. Willing to reside permanently in Conjeeveram for the period of his office.
5. The person appointed as executive trustee shall hold office for five years, subject to good conduct. He shall give security for a sum of Rs. 2000 to the satisfaction of the Board within one month of his appointment. He shall be paid such honorarium as the Board may determine which shall not exceed Rs. 100 per mensem.
6. The functions and powers of the trustee under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act shall ordinarily be exercised by the executive trustee alone.
7. Of the two honorary trustees, one shall be a member of the eastern branch and the other of the western branch of the family of Koti Kenyakadenam Sri Thathadesikar.
13) I submit that this scheme is in vogue till date.
THE ANTIQUE IDOL OF LIZARDS, SUN AND MOON
14) I submit that inside the Temple, there is a idol of a lizard in the prakara behind Garbhagriha. The idol consists of a large lizard with Golden Kavacham, a small lizard with Silver Kavacham, the images of Sun and Moon, both covered with Golden Kavacham, all of them hosted on a wooden plank. This idol is there for several centuries in this Temple, and it is not known when the Golden and Silver Kavacham were adorned on the Lizard. Hereinafter this group of golden and silver lizards, the sun and moon idols are referred to as the antique lizard idol.
15) I submit that the entire area where this “golden lizard” is present inside the Temple, is covered with unsightly plywood partition by
(i) the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee of the Temple, who is an employee of the HR&CE Dept (ii) the Honorary Trustees of the Temple,
collectively hereinafter referred to as the Temple officials, thereby marring the natural beauty of the Temple, in such a way that no one can have even a glimpse of what is inside the plywood partition, away from the direct sight of any devotee.
16) I submit that according to Kanchi Mahathmya in Brahmanda Purana, Chapter 31, Slokas 30 – 97, describes the story of a an Ikshvaku Kula Vamsa King, who ruled Ayodhya by name Asamanjas who got to be born in a low life with his wife for the heinous sins he had committed. Asamanjas and his wife were to be born in several low lives for t6 births and was born as a lizard in his 7th birth. These lizards (Asamanjas and his wife) attained Moksha when a Brahmin, Upamanyu, took great pity on them, strived hard to help them to get rid of their low birth and to attain Moksha. On the advice of Markandeya Maharishi, he carried them to Kanchipuram, where they attained Moksha.

17) I submit that having felt very happy, Upamanyu sang Stotrams on Shri Varadharaja Swamy. Pleased by the kind heart of Upamanyu, Shri Varadharaja Swamy said, “Let these golden bodies of the lizards be in my Sannidhi. When those who as per shastras have darshan and do Prathakshina to me and touch these golden lizards, they will be rid of all kinds of illness”.
This boon, even though many do not even know this story has been passed over several Yugas and several throngs to the Temple to have Darshan of Shri Varadharaja Swamy and touch the lizards to get rid of their illness.
18) There is a board displayed stating this story in a crude form that can be seen displayed at the Southwest corner of the Hasthigiri (The hill on which Shri Devaraja Swamy resides). Even yesterday, the board exists in the said place, and a picture of the board is presented below.
ATTEMPT TO STEALTHILY REMOVE THE ANTIQUE IDOL WITH MODERN REPLICA
19) I submit that Temple officials are attempting to replace the antique lizard idol with a modern replica without any authority whatsoever against the laws of the land.
20) I submit that the law of the land prohibits anyone from removing or replacing antique artefacts. The Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules, hereinafter referred to as the MPPRI Rules, of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the HR&CE Act clearly prevents anyone from removing or replacing antique artefacts.
21) I submit that Rule 31 of the MPPRI Rules of the HR&CE Act states
31. Repairs, alterations, etc., to antiquities. – (1) A trustee or the Board of Trustees, as the case maybe, shall not repair, alter, replace, sell, gift away, or destroy any antiquities or other objects of interest such as sculptures, carvings, inscriptions or paintings without the written permission of the Commissioner and such permission shall be granted only on obtaining competent advice thereon.
(2) While granting permission under sub-rule (1), the Commissioner shall issue such instructions to the trustee or the Board of Trustees, as may be necessary, for preservation of works of art, sculpture, paintings, antiquities and other articles of interest and the trustees shall be bound to carry out such instructions.
22) I submit that Rule 52 of the MPPRI Rules of the HR&CE Act states
52. Alterations to or melting of idols. – No trustee or the Board of Trustees shall alter the character of or repair, remove, melt or replace any metallic or other idol or image in the temple, whether fixed or otherwise, without the express permission of the Government in writing.
23) I submit thus that it is amply clear that no antique artefact in a Temple can be replaced by Temple officials, or by anyone, for that matter.
24) I submit that the Temple officials, in collusion with the Archakas and other Temple employees, have made a brand new replica lizard of the antique lizard idol and are intending to replace the same stealthily. Below is the picture of the modern replica:

25) I submit that the antique idol is already been removed from its existing place by the Temple officials. There is no provision either in the Agama Shastras which govern the rituals of the Temple or the HR&CE Act or any other act of our great Nation.
26) I submit that the fact that the Temple officials having moved the antique lizard idol from its original position itself amounts to an attempted theft.
27) I submit that S.29(f) of the HR&CE Act requires that the HR&CE Dept, must maintain a register with inventory of all idols in the Temple.
29. Preparation of register for all institutions. – (1) For every religious institution, there shall be prepared and maintained a register in such form as the Commissioner may direct showing –
(a) the origin and history of the institution and the names of past and present trustees and particulars as to the custom, if any, regarding succession to the office of trustee;
(b) particulars of the scheme of administration and of the dittam or scale of expenditure;
(c) the names of all offices to which any salary, emolument or perquisite is attached and the nature, time and conditions of service in each case;
(d) the jewels, gold, silver, precious stones, vessels and utensils and other movables belonging to the institution, with their weights and estimated value
(e) particulars of all other endowments of the institution and of all title- deeds and other documents;

(f) particulars of the idols and other images in or connected with the institution, whether intended for worship or for being carried in processions;
(g) particulars of ancient or historical records with their contents in brief;
(h) such other particulars as may be required by the Commissioner.
28) I submit that S. 30 of the HR&CE Act requires that these registers be verified annually
30. Annual verification of the register.—The trustee or his authorized agent shall scrutinize the entries in the register every year and submit to 5[the Commissioner for his approval, directly or through the Assistant Commissioner], as the case may require; a verified statement showing the alterations, omissions, or additions, required in the register and the provisions of sub-section (3) to (6) of section 29 shall apply in relation to such statement as they apply in relation to a register.
29) I submit that S. 31 of the HR&CE Act requires that the registers must be submitted to the appropriate authorities every ten years
31. Submission of register once in ten years.—The Trustee or his authorized agent shall submit to 1[the Commissioner for his approval directly or through the Assistant Commissioner], as the case may require, once in every ten years (commencing from the year in which the register required under section 29 is first submitted), a consolidated register incorporating therein all alterations, omissions and additions made or required to be made in the register submitted under section 29 and the provisions of that section shall apply to such consolidated register as if it were a register submitted under that section.
30) I submit that the details of the antique lizard idol must be recorded by the HR&CE Dept.
31) I submit that furthermore, these antiquities are to be registered with the Archaeological Survey of India as well and therefore they must also have a record of these idols.
32) I submit that the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the AAT Act is enacted to prevent smuggling of antiquities.
33) I submit that Section 17 of the AAT Act states:
S.17 – Transfer of ownership, etc., of antiquities to be initiated to the registering officer – Whenever ay person transfers the ownership, control or possession of any antiquity specified in any notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 14 such person shall intimate, within such period and in such form as may be prescribed, the fact of such transfer to the registering officer.
34) I submit that Section 27 of the AAT Act states:
S.25 Penalty – (1) If any person, himself or by any other person on his behalf, exports or attempts to export any antiquity or art treasure in contravention of section 3, he shall, without prejudice to any confiscation or penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 as applied by section 4, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine.
(2) If any person contravenes the provisions of section 5 or section 12 or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 13 or section 14 or section 17, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both and the antiquity in respect of which the offence has been committed shall be liable to confiscation.
(3) If any person prevents any licensing officer from inspecting any record, photograph or register maintained under section 10 or prevents any officer authorised by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of section 23 from entering into or searching any place under the subsection, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
35) I submit that it is to be noted that the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee of the Temple is an HR&CE Dept employee and thus a Government Servant. Section 12 of the HR&CE Act confirms this
S.12: Commissioner, etc., to be servants of Government. – (1) The
Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and other officers and servants including executive officers of religious institutions employed for the purposes of this Act shall be servants of the Government and their salaries, allowances, pensions and other remuneration shall be paid in the first instance out of the Consolidated Fund of the State. The cost of auditing the accounts of religious institutions shall also be paid in the first instance out of the Consolidated Fund of the State.
36) I submit that it is learnt that the Temple officials have planned to stealthily remove the idol at an appropriate time after the closure of the Temple in the coming days.
37) I submit that the HR&CE Dept has no authority to replace any antique idol without appropriate government orders.
38) I submit that on 01.11.2025, I visited the Temple, verified the information is true, and on confirming, I had written a 22-page complaint to prevent the theft.
39) I submit that on 02.11.2025, Sunday, I visited the office of the Idol Wing CID, hereinafter referred to as the IWCID, only to find that the office is closed and there is no way I could lodge a complaint. The only guard outside the gates informed me that I had to come the next day to file the complaint.
40) I submit that on 03.11.2025, I visited the office of the IWCID respondent and submitted my written complaint with information of commission of cognizable offence. The same was received by the 3rd and 4th respondents from me in person.
41) I submit that S. 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, hereinafter referred to as BNSS, details about the information in cognizable cases.
S. 173: (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station, and if given— (i) orally, it shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it; (ii) by electronic communication, it shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may by rules prescribe in this behalf:
Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77, section 78, section 79 or section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that—
(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77, section 78, section 79 or section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person’s choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information shall be videographed;
(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (6) of section 183 as soon as possible.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in section 175, on receipt of information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, which is made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the offence,—
(i) proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days; or
(ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case.
(4) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1), may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate.
42) I submit that the 5-judge constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of Bihar, dated 12.11.2013, hereinafter referred to as the Lalita Kumari Case, had stated that the police shall register FIR if the complaint discloses information of commission of cognizable offence.
(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
• Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
• Commercial offences
• Medical negligence cases
• Corruption cases
• Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
43) I submit that despite this, the respondents have refused to register FIR and had also refused to give an acknowledgement of my complaint.
44) I submit that I sent the complaint vide registered post on 04.11.2025 to the 3rd respondent.
45) I submit that a copy of the same was also sent by email to the 2nd respondent by email on 07.11.2025. None of these complaints were acknowledged by the respondent till date.
SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
46) I submit that Lalita Kumari case lists cases where preliminary investigation may be required by the investigative agency and the present case does not fall
in any of those categories. On the other hand, I have set the law in motion even before the theft is completed with an intent to prevent the crime, which otherwise will be irreparable.
47) I submit that the scope of preliminary investigation, as envisaged by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Lalita Kumari case as well as under S. 173(3) of the BNSS, is limited and well-defined, serving only to ascertain whether information discloses a prima facie cognizable offence and not to determine the veracity or conduct a full inquiry into the complaint.
48) I submit that as per Lalita Kumari case
(i) Preliminary inquiry is not required in every case; it is permitted only when the information does not, on its face, disclose a cognizable offence but may after basic verification (such as in cases of matrimonial, medical, or commercial nature). The present case does not fall in any of those buckets.
(ii) The purpose of the preliminary investigation is not to verify the truth of the allegations, but to check whether, if accepted on face value, the information discloses a cognizable offence warranting registration of FIR.
(iii) Once prima facie information is available, FIR shall be registered, and no further fact-finding or preliminary inquiry is permitted.
49) I submit that S. 173(3) of BNSS
(i) Recognizes preliminary inquiry for cognizable offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven years imprisonment
(ii) Such enquiry can be initiated by officer-in-charge, with prior approval of an officer not below Deputy Superintendent of Police (DS_), and must be completed in 14 days.
(iii) The scope is strictly to ascertain if there exists a prima facie case to proceed. If yes, FIR shall be registered immediately; if not, the complainant must be informed, enabling recourse to remedy.
50) I therefore submit that the common principles are
(i) The preliminary investigation is safeguard against abuse of law and to ensure only genuine cases of cognizable offences proceed.
(ii) It is not meant for detailed evidence-gathering, cross-examination, or to test the truth of the complaint.
(iii) If upon minimal checking, there appears a cognizable offence, the process moves promptly to FIR and formal investigation
Standard Lalita Kumari Section 173(3) BNSS
When
allowed Only in doubtful cases Offences 3+ to <7 years, with DSP approval Purpose Ascertain if cognizable or not, not truth Ascertain prima facie case to proceed Time limit Within days (usually 7 days) Within 14 days What follows FIR if cognizable offence is seen FIR if prima facie case; else, inform party 51) I therefore submit that both Lalita Kumari case as well as S. 173 BNSS prohibits using preliminary inquiry as a delay tactic or fact-finding tool and require swift FIR registration once the threshold is met. 52) I submit that in the present case (i) The complaint specifically alleges removal and replacement of registered antiquities with modern replicas, which, if true, constitute a clear cognizable offence under the laws of the land. (ii) As per Lalita Kumari, when the facts disclosed by a complainant constitute a cognizable offence on their own, police are duty-bound to register an FIR forthwith, with no discretion for preliminary enquiry. (iii) The case does not involve factual vagueness, a commercial or civil dispute, matrimonial matter, or allegations requiring further verification in order to reach the threshold of a cognizable offence. (iv) The facts are direct and grave – if a protected idol has been replaced, the offence is established prima facie and does not require police to test the “truth” by further questions or fact-finding before registering FIR (v) Both Lalita Kumari and S. 173(3) BNSS recognize preliminary enquiry only in exceptional cases of ambiguity or in offences of a particular minor category; theft or substitution of temple antiquities is not such an offence, warranting preliminary inquiry. (vi) Attempting a preliminary inquiry in such circumstances results in direct delay of justice, risk destruction of evidence, and directly contravene established Supreme Court mandates. (vii) Given the nature of the alleged crime, and the history of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept, any delay in FIR registration due to preliminary inquiry allows the accused to destroy, tamper with, or conceal critical evidence. LEAKING COMPLAINT TO THE MEDIA BEFORE COMPLETION OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGAION 53) I submit that the respondents have leaked the information about the compliant to the media before conducting preliminary inquiry and/or registering an FIR. This raises several serious concerns and is highly critical from both a legal and ethical standpoint. 54) I submit that leaking of the complaint to media has undermined the investigation and paves way to tampering of evidence and hampering of witnesses (i) Public dissemination of complaint details and alleged criminal acts prior to FIR or even preliminary verification gives the accused lead time to destroy, alter or conceal evidence and pressurize potential witnesses (ii) In heritage and idol theft cases, even minor delays or forewarnings can result in irreplaceable loss: objects may be rapidly relocated or smuggled out of the country, or replicase further modified or hidden to hinder recovery. 55) I submit that revealing the details of the complaint is a violation of procedural integrity (i) Police are legally expected to maintain confidentiality and act with urgency and neutrality until a cognizable offence is formally recorded and investigation launched. (ii) Premature leaks erode the credibility and impartiality of the investigation process and may create a perception of bias or external influence 56) I submit that leaking of the complaint further creates prejudice to complainant and whistleblower: (i) Public leaks subject complainant or whistleblowers to retaliation, threats or harassment from suspected parties. This chills further reporting and discourages community participation in the protection of heritage. (ii) Responsible handling of sensitive complaints is vital in cases relating to temples and religious/community sentiment. 57) I submit that this is clearly an evasion of legal duty (i) The law – especially clarified in Lalita Kumari case – places a mandatory duty on the police to first register an FIR or, in rare cases, conduct a confidential and swift preliminary enquiry. (ii) Leaking to the media before fulfilling these statutory obligations is indicative of procedural violation and administrative indifference. 58) I submit further that the leaking of the complaint to media has undermined judicial scrutiny (i) Pre-FIR leaks can create a “trial by media”, contaminate witness testimony, and foster widespread speculation, all of which undermine proper judicial scrutiny and due process. (ii) This can potentially affect eventual prosecution if the matter comes to trial, as defence may claim prejudice or irregularity in handling evidence and witness protection. DERILICTION OF DUTY 59) I submit that S. 173 BNSS and Lalita Kumari case requires that an FIR be registered forthwith in case of a complaint which discloses information of commission of cognizable offence. 60) I submit that Lalita Kumari case further states that the police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 61) I submit that looking for whichever angle, the genuine intent to prevent a crime and bring perpetrators to justice has already been compromised and the perpetrators already have a distinct advantage in ensuring that they have ample time to hamper and tamper with evidences. This is unacceptable and goes against the very grain of S. 173, BNSS and Lalita Kumari case. 62) I submit that I am before this Hon’ble Court to prevent this heinous crime of idol theft, which is rampant in Tamil Nadu for several decades now. 63) I submit that the lethargic and callous attitude of the respondents has already compromised the case in hand. There is ample evidence that the respondents have failed in its duties, is complicit, or is acting under influence. 64) I submit that several precedents of such lethargic attitude and loss of antiquities of Temples are very well documented and known to this Hon’ble Court which needs no further elaboration. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU TRANSFERING ALL UNDERTRAIL CASES TO CBI 65) I submit that the Government of Tamil Nadu, had passed a Government Order G.O.Ms. No. 885, dated 01.08.2018, categorically admitting that the Tamil Nadu police is incapable to handle cases of idol theft and transferred all cases under investigation to CBI, by according its consent u/s 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, hereinafter referred to as the DSPE Act. 66) I submit that it is pertinent to state that this Hon’ble Court set aside the said Government Order as it had constituted a Special Investigating Team lead by Mr. Ponn Manickavel, under its supervision vide its order in W.P. No. 20392 of 2018 dated 30.11.2018. The operative portion of the order is extracted below for ready reference: The conclusions:- 45.This Court is empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution to pass any orders to secure the ends of justice. We have already expressed our anguish over the conduct of the State in handling the matter insensitively. The directions issued by this Court and confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court have not been complied in full. We have also expressed that we are satisfied with the credentials of the Mr.A.G.Pon Manickavel, I.P.S, Inspector General of Police and the steps taken by him in the process of investigation. Hence, the following directions are given, which shall be implemented by the State forthwith: (1)Mr.A.G.Pon Manickavel, I.P.S, Inspector General of Police is hereby appointed as a Special Officer to head Idol Wing-CID, Chennai to deal with the cases of theft of idols and antiques in all stages, for a period of one year, who shall assume charge on his superannuation on 30.11.2018 forthwith and function from the same camp with the same facilities. The Government shall pass orders to that effect. It is made clear that any delay by the Government in passing appropriate orders, shall not curtail the powers of Mr.A.G.Pon Manickavel, I.P.S. to head the team and investigate the cases and take appropriate action as per law. (2)The members of the Special team constituted on the basis of the orders of this Court on 21.07.2017 shall continue to be part of the team and any such member as requested by Mr.A.G.Pon Manickavel, I.P.S., shall be spared by the Government from the Tamil Nadu Police Force. (3)Mr.A.G.Pon Manickavel, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, shall draw the same pay and benefits that were available to him at the time of his retirement for the entire tenure of his term as Special officer. (4)The Special Officer, hereby appointed shall investigate the cases thoroughly and periodically submit all the reports before the appropriate Court as per law and also before this Court in a sealed cover to enable this Court to monitor the investigation. (5)The Special Officer and his team shall continue to not only investigate and file charge Sheets and prosecute in the pending cases but shall also continue to do so in the cases arising in future during his tenure or until further orders from this Court. (6)The CBI and other agencies of Central Government shall continue to give appropriate support to the Special officer and his team. (7)No action or enquiry against the Special officer or any member of his team shall be initiated except with the concurrence of this Court. If any materials are there to rely upon for necessary action, the same be placed before this court for further directions. (8)The State shall forthwith issue appropriate communications to concerned Departments of the State including the HR & CE Department to extend their fullest co-operation to the Special Team and furnish necessary particulars and documents sought by them. (9) The State shall create a separate Division to handle the financial aspects of the functioning of the team so as to ensure that no action is delayed for paucity of funds and separate account is to be created for this purpose and reasonable amount must be available to meet out the daily overheads. (10)All the directions issued by this Court shall be implemented without any delay or demur and a report shall be submitted regarding the action taken. 46.With the above directions, the writ petitions are allowed. Consequently, other connected petitions in W.M.P.Nos.23975, 23976, 24609 and 26868 of 2018 are closed. No costs. 47.When we are about to pronounce this order, the petitioner in WP.No.20392 of 2018 produced a copy of the proceedings issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in Police Note No.SC/19/2018 dated 29.11.2018 indicating that one Thiru.Abhay Kumar Singh, IPS, Additional Director General of Police/Chief Vigilance Officer, Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited, Karur has been transferred and posted as Additional Director General of Police, Idol Wing, CID, Chennai by upgrading the post of Inspector General of Police, Idol Wing CID. 48.We are of the view that the State all along, is not inclined to continue with the investigation of idol theft cases as the same were transferred to CBI despite pendency of the stay order of this Court. It is also pertinent to note that after the orders were reserved, they have upgraded the post of the Additional Director General of Police and appointed an officer, by order dated 29.11.2018, which action is inappropriate and it would amply prove the transfer of cases in a most hurried manner within a single day i.e., on 01.08.2018. Similarly, the manner in which the present order dated 29.11.2018 has been passed, will speak for itself. Hence, notwithstanding the order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Government, which has become redundant, Tr.A.G.Pon Manickavel shall take charge as Special Officer to head the Idol Wing as ordered by us, in order to preserve the idols as well as recovery of the stolen idols to uphold the cultural heritage of this land. 67) I submit that the same was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order in S.L.P. (C) Nos 32344-32345 of 2018 dated 12.04.2019. 68) I therefore respectfully submit that the respondents, by their conduct and omissions as set out above, have demonstrated their inability and lack of impartiality in handling the present idol theft case. Their actions have failed to inspire confidence that they can investigate and pursue this matter with the required degree of fairness, urgency, and diligence as mandated by law. 69) I submit that in Cr. No. 5/2018 registered by the respondent police dated 23.07.2018, a case related to theft of Parvathi Amman Vigraham from Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple, Mylapore, Chennai, hereinafter referred to Mylapore Peacock case, in broad day light clearly demonstrates how cases are manhandled by the respondents. 70) I submit that Mylapore Peacock case clearly establishes historical pattern of idol thefts and illegal replacements in major temples, with proven instances of non-reporting of theft by the HR&CE Dept officials, failure or delays in police investigation by the IWCID, their inability to understand the HR&CE Act and its rules, the inability to trace the lost idols, the inability to investigate all parties involved, despite everything in plain sight of the investigation team. 71) I submit that just like in the present case, the antique one-of-a-kind Mylapore Peacock idol was stealthily stolen and replaced in the guise of “renovation” of the Temple in 2004. Despite everyone being aware of the same, until I had set the law in motion, no one bothered about the long lost antique religious Vigraha of Parvathy Amman. Mylapore Sri Kapali Kanchi Sri Devaraja Aspect Temple Swamy Temple Nature of Theft Proven theft and replacement with modern replica of Parvati Amman in the form of Peacock idol, Rahu, Kedhu, Chandran, Dwarapalaka, Dwarapalika; replica installed Displacement of the antique gold/silver lizards, gold sun and moon idols from its existing place. Making of new modern replica, with an intent to replace the antique idols Modus Operandi Involves insider replacing original antique idols with replicas with elaborate conspiracy, plan and execution and concealment attempts, destruction of records Involves insider replacing original antique idols with replicas with elaborate conspiracy, plan. Planting of media reports to divert attention and mislead one and all. Timing and Method Removal done night before Kumbabishekam with involvement of insiders Plywood partitions used to hide the antique lizard from plain sight. Antique lizard already removed and placed elsewhere. New Lizard already in Temple premises ready to be replaced swiftly bac into the “hidden partition” Pattern of Evidence Years of secrecy – law set in motion after 14 years by me. Witnesses were threatened. Archakas threatened. Months of secrecy – new replica made without uttering a word to public. Direct complaint before theft completed. Law set in motion before the crime is completed. Trustees, Archakas and other Temple employees involved. Official response of IWCID Even though FIR registered promptly, not all potential coconspirators enquired even once. A1 let off with just one single S. 161(3) CrPC statement and no other member of the Thiruppani Committee was even contacted. A1 let off, for “lack of evidence” Initial refusal to register FIR when complaint delivered by hand, sent by post and sent by email. Information to news/social media by the IWCID even before they commenced and completed preliminary investigation, thereby alerting and providing lead time to accused to hamper and tamper with evidence. Media involvement News report after events. Archaka coerced. Premature leak to press even before preliminary inquiry or FIR registration Risk to Evidence Actual documents and artifacts destroyed and judicial note taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court on the destruction. High risk – leak enabled the accused to plan concealment/tampering of evidence. Police Conduct Investigation initially under SIT progressed rapidly, only to enter into a deep state of coma after SIT dissolved Appeared procedurally indifferent, partial, nonregistration of FIR Judicial Review During this case, Govt of TN volunteered to transfer all cases to the CBI by passing G.O.Ms.No. 885 Petitioners seek FIR registration, SIT formation, protection and accountability Whistleblower Threats Archakas/insiders threatened which is evident from S.164(5) CrPC statements and S. 161(3) CrPC Statements. Telephone threats, indirect intimidation through media reports Legal Position Clear cognizable offence; Preliminary enquiry not conducted despite delay in reporting the crime. Clear cognizable offence. Preliminary enquiry conducted despite crime reported even before completion. 72) I submit that yet another crime, reported by the me, with the IWCID and registered as Crime No. 2/2019, related to theft of antiquities in Shri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, including theft of Utsava Moorthy, theft of Salagrama inside the Moolamurthy by desecrating the Moolamurthy, theft of Purushothama Perumal, theft of Kambathadi Anjaneyar, theft of Kavachams, theft of Sengol, theft of Kalasams, theft of Vahanams, theft of Lamps, theft of Simhasanam, theft of idols from the museum, etc., theft of several jewels, precious stones etc., unearthed during illegal excavation inside the temple, missing antiquities unearthed during illegal excavation, replacement of antique doors etc., is still not moving an inch ever since the registration of FIR after this Hon’ble Court directed the respondent in Crl. O. P. No. 5596 of 2018 dated 22.02.2019. 73) I submit that despite the registration of Crime No. 2/2019 dated 11.12.2019, till date the respondent police have not taken into secured either the original antique artefacts or the fake replicase. Even worse, except for the inquiry on 11.12.2019 with me, till date they have not even bothered to contact me for any further information whatsoever. 74) I submit that after the registration of the FIR at Srirangam, I was beaten up, false cases foisted on me, arrested illegally and intimidated in all possible ways till date. PREMATURE CLOSURE OF THE COMPLAINT 75) I submit that on 10.11.2025, I received a letter from 3rd respondent with the following shortcomings: (i) Delay in Initiation of Investigation • The most glaring procedural failures was the delay between the lodging of the complaint and the commencement of the police investigation. Although the complaint was handed over to the police at 10:30 AM on 03.11.2025, the police only began their site inspection and substantive investigation at 10:30 AM on 05.11.2025—resulting in an unjustified delay of 48 hours before any meaningful action was taken. This delay is particularly egregious in light of the risk to valuable antiquities, ongoing or imminent criminal activity, and the requirement under law for prompt police action upon receipt of a complaint alleging cognizable offences. Such delays can compromise the integrity of evidence, enable interference or tampering by interested parties, and constitute a breach of the duty to protect public heritage assets. (ii) Failure to Register FIR and Take Preventive Action: • Despite the complaint’s detailed presentation of ongoing conspiracy, preparation/attempt, and imminent loss of heritage property—a clear cognizable offence—the police refused to register a First Information Report (FIR). Instead, they relied on an illegal, superficial seven-day “preliminary enquiry” and justified closure on the basis that “no theft yet” had been completed, disregarding established Supreme Court guidelines. • Such delay can and might have: ▪ Facilitate tampering or removal of evidence (e.g., relocation of antique/new idols, fudging of records, destruction of records etc) ▪ Allow intimidation or coaching of temple staff and potential witnesses ▪ Undermine effective judicial or statutory remedy for prevention. • This 48-hour gap between complaint receipt and the start of investigation is both a procedural violation and a risk factor for further loss or compromise to heritage property. It exemplifies administrative apathy, non-compliance with statutory urgency, and contributes to the broader argument for judicial oversight and departmental accountability in the closure report’s handling. (iii) Superficial Process and Neglect of Factual Depth: • The closure report is perfunctory, comprising only three paragraphs, and ignores substantive factual details provided in the complaint— including specific names, documented evidence, and identified witnesses. The procedural approach was mechanical and non-analytical, undermining the seriousness of the complaint. (iv) Lack of Transparency and Legitimate Authority: • No details are provided regarding the expert or committee (if any) that assessed the idols’ state, the authority approached for administrative sanction, or the official basis for engaging a donor or procuring new idols. Reference to key processes is vague, unverified, or left pending, exposing major gaps in transparency and procedural propriety (v) Contradiction with Judicial and Statutory Mandates: • The report’s acceptance of donor-funded idols directly contradicts court-ordered requirements that such replacements must only use temple funds following proper scrutiny and audit. No audit or budget review is documented, raising questions of financial and heritage accountability. (vi) Improper Association with Accused and Witness Handling: • The investigation was conducted with key accused parties present and failed to identify, record, or examine independent witnesses— risking intimidation, bias, and evidence tampering. (vii) Obfuscation of Core Heritage Issue: • The closure report omits precise references to the “golden lizard” (central to the complaint and temple tradition) and repeats typographical errors (such as “lamp”) from the complaint uncritically, reflecting a lack of independent or diligent enquiry (viii) Disregard of Ongoing Offence and Incomplete Crime • It is clear from my complaint that the theft/conspiracy concerning the temple antiquities is “half complete,” with substantial preparatory acts, movement, and conspiracy for replacement already admitted by the temple administration and acknowledged in the police’s own report. Despite this, the closure report by the 3rd respondent is premised entirely on the technicality that “there is no theft,” ignoring actionable offences of conspiracy, attempt, and preparatory acts, all of which are cognizable and punishable under BNS, HR&CE Act, and AAT Act among others. This reflects a gross misunderstanding of the law, as it is well-established that even incomplete or attempted theft, as well as any conspiracy to commit such an offence, demands police intervention, registration of FIR, and preventive measures. Merely awaiting completed theft before acting fundamentally defeats the preventive purpose of criminal and heritage protection law. 76) I submit that the 3rd respondent concluded his closure report stating that they are unable to act on the complaint at this juncture as no theft has happened (i) The final paragraph of the closure letter incorrectly asserts that "at present unable to take any action," solely because no idol or antique has yet been physically stolen. This stance is legally unsound: police are duty-bound to prevent crimes at the stage of conspiracy, preparation, or attempt, especially involving heritage property. The refusal to act on admitted planning for removal/replacement undermines the core objectives of both the criminal and heritage statutes and exposes such assets to irreparable risk. Statutory and Supreme Court guidelines require intervention at the first sign of a cognizable offence, not a delayed response after its completion. 77) I submit that my complaint unambiguously demonstrates that unauthorized movement of antique idol is illegal (i) Illegality of Unauthorized Movement of Antique Idols • My complaint clearly demonstrates, with statutory references, that proposed or actual movement of any antique idol—outside of approved conservation, sanctioned procession, or government-authorized repair—is unlawful. The failure to prevent or respond to unauthorized movement, while disregarding required expert review and government permission, amounts to statutory dereliction and exposes all those involved to penal consequences under the Antiquities Act, HR&CE Act, and associated rules. Police and administrative authorities are duty-bound to register FIRs and act preventively on any information regarding impending illegal movement, irrespective of whether outright theft is completed. 78) I submit that after receiving the closure report by email on 11.11.2025, I had submitted a detailed, reasoned objection (a 29 page document) highlighting the report’s statutory and procedural deficiencies – including failure to register FIR, illegal preliminary enquiry, lack of Heritage Committee approval, improper handling of witnesses, admissions of planed removal, and failure to act on my evidence of ongoing conspiracy and unlawful movement of antique idols – while formally demanding immediate lawful action, registration of a criminal case, unbiased investigation and preservation of the temple’s heritage assets. 79) I submit till date the respondents have not responded to my objection letter. NO RESPONSE FOR OBJECTION OF CLOSURE REPORT FROM IWCID 80) I submit that the objection to the closure report was sent on 11.11.2025 by email and subsequently the same sent by 12.11.2025 by speed post. 81) I submit that the same was received by the IWCID on 13.11.2025. Yet till date, 20.11.2025, no action taken on my objection report. 82) I submit that therefore 18 days have passed since I had given my complaint dated 02.11.2025 and the respondent police have refused to register an FIR, despite their so-called closure report clearly proves not just prima-facie, but a clear crime. PRAYER 83) I submit thus that the track record of the IWCID in handling cases related to theft of idols from Temples speak for itself. Nothing more needs to be said. 84) I submit that in view of the above it has become abundantly clear that the present case cannot be effectively or fairly investigated by IWCID. Judicial pronouncements and Government orders have previously recognized the inherent limitations and conflicts of interest faced by the respondent departments in heritage crime investigations. For these reasons, to ensure a thorough, independent, and time-bound probe, it is just, necessary, and in the interest of justice, that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT), under its supervision, to investigate and prosecute all offences arising out of the theft and illegal replacement. of the antique lizard idols at Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple, Kancheepuram. 85) I submit that as acknowledged in Government Order (Ms) No. 885 dated 01.08.2018 from the Home (SC) Department, the Government of Tamil Nadu has itself recognized that idol theft cases are not only highly significant and complex—often involving antique idols of immeasurable heritage value and international ramifications—but also demand investigation by 'highly competent, professional and impartial agencies, which could also win the confidence of the Hon’ble High Court and the public at large.' The order further records the concurrence of the Director General of Police and the formal extension of powers to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for all pending and future idol theft cases, citing the need for proactive involvement of various Central agencies and foreign governments. This government admission fully supports the present prayer for constitution of a Special Investigation Team, under the supervision of this Hon’ble Court, to ensure a fair and thorough investigation in the instant case. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Wirt of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to register FIR based on my complaint dated 02.11.2025 on the attempted theft of the antique idols of lizards with gold and silver kavacham and the idols of sun and moon with silver Kavachams situated at Shri Devaraja Swamy Temple, Kancheepuram, initiate necessary legal action on the 2nd 3rd and 4th respondent for the dereliction of their duty in registering the FIR with a further direct the 1st respondent to secure the actual and replica idols pending investigation to prevent theft/smuggling/alteration of the artefacts and consequently direct the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), under the supervision of this Hon’ble Court, to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation on the theft, illegal movement, and replacement of the antique gold/silver lizards, sun and moon Vigrahas and other antique artefacts at Shri Devaraja Swamy Temple, Kancheepuram, in a time-bound and impartial manner and pass such or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice. Dated this 20th November 2025 at Chennai BEFORE ME THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. ______________ of 2025 Rangarajan Narasimhan …Petitioner-in-Person Vs. The Director General of Police Tamil Nadu Police Department Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004 and 3 others ...Respondents AFFIDAVIT OF RANGARAJAN NARASIMHAN Rangarajan Narasimhan Petitioner-in-Person