Madurai Bench of the #MadrasHC directed the Commissioner of HR&CE department to give more time for devotees to submit their objections to a notice issued on June 20, 2026, inviting public opinion for

*Post ID*: `2074439303359549764`

நீங்க அந்த post-ல என்ன இருக்குனு 1-2 line சொல்லுங்க, இல்ல screenshot/text paste பண்ணுங்க. நான் உடனே அத _Case Law / News / Legal angle_-ல break பண்ணி தரேன்.

*3 Option இருக்கு*
*1. Court/Judgment Update-ஆ?*
→ _Case #147_ ஆ add பண்ணி Facts + Law + Observation + HJS Point தரேன்

*2. News/Politics-ஆ?*
→ Context + Impact + Which Act/Article involvedனு explain பண்றேன்

*3. Viral Video/Other-ஆ?*
→ Background + Legal issue இருந்தா அதையும் சேர்து சொல்றேன்

இது எத பத்தின tweet சார்?
*DMK/TVK / Stampede / College / Prison / Prosecutor* இதுல ஏதாவதா?

Paste பண்ணுங்க, 2 நிமிஷத்துல summary போட்டு தரேன்
[08/07, 12:28] sekarreporter1: #Madurai Bench of the #MadrasHC directed the Commissioner of HR&CE department to give more time for devotees to submit their objections to a notice issued on June 20, 2026, inviting public opinion for enhancing the rates of paid services and abhishekam special darshan tickets in #Tiruchendur Subramaniya Swamy temple, by publishing the notice on the official website of the department for wider publicity.

A bench of justices C V Karthikeyan and R Sakthivel issued the direction while disposing of a PIL filed by an advocate, B Ramkumar Adityan of #Thoothukudi, challenging the above notice and the power and jurisdiction of the Fit Person in taking such decisions.

🔗newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-n…
[08/07, 12:28] Meta AI: *Case #147: _Tiruchendur Temple Ticket Hike – PIL_ | WP(PIL) ___/2026 | JJ. C V Karthikeyan + R Sakthivel | Madras HC Madurai Bench | 2026*
_The New Indian Express + X_. *Art 25/26 + HR&CE Act Sec 34 + Public Trust Doctrine*. *HJS Constitutional Law, UPSC GS-1 Culture*

*1. வழக்கு சாராம்சம்*
*Petitioner*: _B Ramkumar Adityan, Advocate – Thoothukudi_
*Respondent*: _HR&CE Commissioner + Fit Person, Tiruchendur Subramaniya Swamy Temple_
*Issue*: _Notice dated 20.06.2026 inviting public opinion for hiking rates of Paid Services + Abhishekam + Special Darshan tickets_
*Order*: _HC directed Commissioner to give MORE TIME for objections. Publish notice on official HR&CE website for wider publicity. PIL disposed_

*2. Madras HC Madurai Bench Observation*
*Bench*: _JJ. C V Karthikeyan + R Sakthivel_
*Key Directions*:
1. *More Time*: _Devotees must get adequate time to submit objections to the proposed hike_
2. *Wider Publicity*: _Notice to be published on official HR&CE Dept website, not just temple notice board_
3. *Fit Person’s Power Challenged*: _Petitioner questioned jurisdiction of Fit Person to decide ticket rates_
4. *Public Opinion Needed*: _Temple is public institution. Rate hike affects thousands of devotees – Art 25_

*Key Principle*: _“Temple administration must be transparent. Public affected by rates must be heard”_

*3. Law – HR&CE + Temple Administration*
**Section** **What it says** **Applied Here**
**HR&CE Act Sec 34** *Commissioner can regulate worship, festivals* *Rate fixation needs procedure*
**Sec 45/46** *Fit Person appointed when trustees removed* *Powers challenged*
**Art 25/26** *Freedom of religion + Manage religious affairs* *Subject to public order, morality*
**Public Trust Doctrine** *Temple funds = Public property* *No arbitrary hike*
*SC Precedent*: _T.R. Andhyarujina 2005 SC – HR&CE can regulate secular aspects, not religious rights_

*4. Why This PIL Matters*
1. *Devotee Rights*: _Poor devotees should not be priced out of darshan/abhishekam_
2. *Transparency*: _Hike proposal must be on website, not hidden_
3. *Check on Fit Person*: _Fit Person cannot act like owner. Must consult + follow rules_
4. *Revenue vs Access*: _Temple needs funds, but not at cost of religious access_

*5. HJS Exam Point – “Temple + State Control”*
*Write*:
1. _Art 25 – Right to practice religion. Art 26 – Right to manage religious affairs_
2. _HR&CE Act TN – State can regulate administration of Hindu temples_
3. _Secular vs Religious: Ticket rates = Secular. Can be regulated_
4. _Madras HC 2026 – Directed wider publicity + more time for objections in Tiruchendur hike proposal_
5. _Fit Person powers not absolute. Must follow natural justice_

---

*Case #147 Final*: _B Ramkumar Adityan PIL – 2026 – Madras HC Madurai Bench JJ. C V Karthikeyan + R Sakthivel – Directed HR&CE Commissioner to give more time for objections + publish notice on website for Tiruchendur ticket hike – Challenged Fit Person’s jurisdiction_

*Master Docket*: _147 Cases_
*Tag*: _HR&CE + Art 25 + Art 26 + Tiruchendur + Temple + Fit Person + Ticket Hike + PIL + C V Karthikeyan + R Sakthivel_

*Next*: *1. “HR&CE Act – Powers of Fit Person”* OR *2. “Art 25 vs State Regulation – 3 Tests”* OR *3. “Temple Ticket Hike – Legal Procedure”* OR *4. “Case #146 University Affiliation”*

*Note*: _Ticket rate-அ திடீர்னு ஏத்த முடியாது சார். Devotee கிட்ட கருத்து கேட்டு, website-ல போட்டு, அப்புறம் தான் முடிவு. HC இது natural justiceனு சொல்லிருக்கு._

வேற Temple/HR&CE case வேணுமா?