Inside The Battle To Protect Tiruvannamalai Temple's Sacred Space: A Conversation With TR Ramesh

Around 200 kilometres from Chennai is one of the most famous Shiva temples of Tamil Nadu, the Arunachaleswarar Temple in Tiruvannamalai, standing at the foot of the Annamalaiyar hill.

It is a landscape where devotion and heritage have converged for centuries. To this day, thousands of devotees walk barefoot around the hill every full moon on the 14-kilometre Girivalam path, their chants mingling with the scent of camphor and jasmine that fills the night air.

But it is during Karthigai Deepam that the town truly transforms. Lamps flicker on every street, temple gopurams give a golden glow, and atop the hill, a massive flame is lit, said to symbolise Lord Shiva himself as an eternal light.

This annual spectacle draws pilgrims from across India, reaffirming Tiruvannamalai’s place at the centre of Shaivite devotion. Amid this timeless faith, however, a modern battle over the temple’s surroundings has taken shape, a case that may redefine how sacred heritage coexists with the world around it.

A few days ago, the temple witnessed something unusual. Two judges of the Madras High Court came to look at construction works inside and outside the temple. These had been brought to their attention through a PIL filed by temple activist T. R. Ramesh.

While he had challenged the building of a shopping complex in front of the Rajagopuram (eastern tower) of the temple, the Bench later expanded the matter to assess other projects proposed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HRCE) department.

Hours later, after a thorough inspection, Justices R. Suresh Kumar and S. Sounthar, who were hearing the matter, returned and, after a few days, passed orders staying all such civil works. The final judgment in the matter is expected soon.

Given the stand of the Court till the last hearing, it is unlikely to go in HRCE’s favour. The outcome, Hindu activists believe, will set a national precedent to stop seeing temples as sources of revenue generation and to draw a red line on what can and cannot be done at a heritage structure in the name of modern amenities.

At this timely moment, Swarajya spoke with Ramesh to follow up on the case, about which he had spoken with this publication in great detail before approaching the Court in November 2023.

Q: Could you begin by explaining what exactly your PIL challenged? It would be helpful for those who have not followed the matter previously.

A: The PIL was filed against a government order, G.O. No. 336 of 2023, that approved the construction of 150 shops, a shopping complex, right opposite the Raja Gopuram, the main eastern tower of the Tiruvannamalai temple. The estimated cost was Rs 6.36 crore, taken from the temple’s funds.

The land in question belongs to the temple and has a 16-pillar mandapam at its centre. That mandapam holds immense religious significance. During festivals, processional deities are first brought there for worship before being taken out in chariots or palanquins.

The open space is crucial because the Tiruvannamalai temple has almost one festival every month. It has two or three major festivals during the year, but almost every month there is some celebration.

During festival times, thousands of people gather in that space. That open space is very important, both for religious significance and practical reasons. Whenever there is open space in a vantage position, the HRCE department wants to develop it in the name of building shops or other constructions.

Q: How did the court respond when you initially brought this to its attention?

A: Soon after they brought the G.O., they started constructing. I was in Delhi at the time for a case in the Supreme Court. When pictures of the construction reached me, I mentioned it before a special Bench of Justice Mahadevan and Justice Adikesavulu, who were hearing temple cases.

The government counsel said, “No, there are already shops there, we are just reconstructing them.” All sorts of lies were presented before the court. The counsel also claimed that there were shops as early as 1920 and that the court had recognised them. It was a blatant lie.

In 1920, the court had said that the land belongs to the temple, not to the municipality, and also that no shops should be opened there. I had that judgment, given to me by a devotee, and I presented it too.

When the judges saw that they were being misled, they were very upset. At 2:45 p.m., they said, “This work should stop right now, at this minute.” They told the government counsel, “Call the Commissioner and instruct him immediately. We want the status by 4 o’clock.” By 4 p.m., they confirmed the work had been stopped. Remember, I had not even filed any petition yet.

Subsequently, I filed the petition and the stay order continues.

Q: Please tell us about the arguments made in court. Did you mention anything more than what you have said earlier, that the HRCE Act does not allow the use of temple funds for these purposes? What was the stand taken by the department?

A: Yes. We were helped by a judgment delivered by the Madras High Court. On 9 January 2025, there was another case regarding a shopping complex being built using temple funds, not within the temple complex, but nearby.

That construction was challenged before the Chief Justice’s Bench. After extensive arguments, the Chief Justice said that temple funds cannot be used to build a shopping complex.

That was the Nandishwarar Temple near Chengalpattu. The order was very detailed and said that neither surplus funds nor the main funds of a temple can be used for such constructions. The government made the Executive Officer of the temple file an appeal before the Supreme Court. In May, the special leave petition was dismissed, so the High Court’s order became final.

Subsequently, when the Tiruvannamalai case came up again in August, we brought this order to the attention of the temple Bench and pointed out that it had been upheld by the Supreme Court. Immediately, the HRCE took a different stance, stating that they would not construct shops now, but would instead construct a queue complex and waiting area.

It is alleged that they had already taken money from the contractor in advance. When the work was stopped, the contractor demanded his money back. To compensate, officials told him they would give him some other civil work in the same place.

That is when I objected, saying that the case was about G.O. 336, which specifically concerned a shopping complex. If they wanted to do something else, they should withdraw that G.O.

The court said they should not go ahead with the construction, but the matter was not finalised. They were asked to bring proper plans and drawings for the proposed queue complex outside the temple.

When those plans were submitted, I produced photographs showing that massive constructions for a queue complex and waiting area were already going on inside the temple, very close to the ancient wall.

This construction inside the temple had not been disclosed. The HRCE presented it as if they were only proposing the queue complex outside, while work was already going on inside. When I presented the photographs, the judges were shocked that HRCE had hidden this fact.

They said, “How can you build such a thing inside the temple? You cannot do this at all.” On that day, a stay order was given, preventing any construction inside or outside the temple.

The court also said they would inspect the temple themselves. The inspection took place on 5 October. I requested that the petitioner also be present, and the judges agreed.

Q: Since the stay on construction continues, it is clear that the judges were not pleased with what they saw on site. But could you please walk us through what happened that day? Was it a thorough inspection or just a quick visit?

A: It was a detailed check. The two judges were there for a few hours. During the inspection, they found three guest houses built inside the temple in the fourth prakara, all modern structures.

I pointed out that they had not even obtained municipal approval. They (HRCE) said they would get the approval. I asked how they could even start without it. The judges noted everything, including a modernised mandapam being used as the temple office. They were visibly disturbed.

Q: What followed that was the last hearing on 9 October. What did the Bench say about the inspection, and did you make any fresh arguments?

A: Last week, when the matter came up again, HRCE submitted a list of ongoing works and falsely claimed most were 70 per cent complete, clearly to pressure the court.

I again raised the issue of the Annadhanam hall, saying that the municipality cannot approve it without referring it to the Heritage Commission, as per the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012, which came into force on 1 March 2025.

Under that Act, any construction, development, or alteration in a heritage place cannot happen without approval from the Heritage Commission. The government counsel tried to say they had approval from a heritage committee, but that was a temporary body appointed by the court, not the statutory commission. The judges agreed.

I also presented an affidavit filed by the Municipal Commissioner in 2005 in the Supreme Court, stating there were only two shops inside the temple selling puja articles, and no shops outside or adjacent to it. All encroachments had been removed. The Supreme Court had accepted that affidavit and said that any future construction must have municipal approval.

I asked how these massive works could happen without it. Someone should go to jail for this.

The court continued the stay and directed the Tamil Nadu government to form the Heritage Commission within four weeks. The Act came in 2012 but was never operationalised until March 2025.

The court took cognisance after I presented the copy of the Act and the G.O. putting it into force. I doubt if the government will comply because the proposed composition of the Commission has too many bureaucrats and too few experts.

Q: Are you happy with how the court proceedings have gone?

A: As far as interim measures go, yes. But look at the blatant violations. First, HRCE did not obey the law. Under the HRCE Act, temple funds can only be used for dharmic purposes. Constructing a shopping complex, that too in a sacred space used for monthly festivals, is completely anti-Hindu.

Second, the temple is being controlled illegally by HRCE. There is no order appointing an Executive Officer to this temple, yet one functions there, issuing tenders and orders. I have pointed this out to the court, but they said it does not fall under this PIL.

They already spent around Rs 50–75 lakhs on preparatory work. My prayer includes refunding that money to the temple and punishing those responsible, but the court has been silent on that so far.

The judges’ inspection made it clear that HRCE’s functioning is deeply problematic. I am grateful to the judges for personally visiting. Only then could they see the extent of what was happening in Tiruvannamalai.

The overall impression seems to be that all is not well, including crowd management and general administration. In fact, the judges orally observed that, given the scale of the temple and the crowds it attracts, it should be managed like Tirupati, under a Devasthanam-type structure.

That gives an idea of their thinking. They perhaps feel enough is enough.

So, I believe any judgment in the Tiruvannamalai case will be along similar lines, against the HRCE department.

Also Read: Tiruvannamalai Arunachaleswarar Temple Shopping Complex Issue - TR Ramesh Speaks To Swarajya