Madras High Court grants man police protection, 60-minute window to visit parents’ grave amid family feud

Justice L Victoria Gowri clarified that such police protection is limited solely to facilitating the petitioner’s visit to the graveyard for the said purpose.

This ruling highlights the court’s role in balancing personal safety with cultural rights. By granting a one-hour window and limiting the number of attendees, the court successfully navigated a volatile family dispute to preserve a “customary practice.” It also underscores the administrative reality that individuals seeking state protection for private rituals are often required to bear the financial cost of that security.

Pay charges for protection

• The Madras High Court clarified that such police protection is limited solely to facilitating the petitioner’s visit to the graveyard for the said purpose.
• It further directed that the petitioner must pay the prescribed charges in accordance with the relevant government order for availing police protection.
• The Madras High Court noted that the relief sought was narrow and time-bound, confined only to enabling the petitioner to perform a customary ritual.

Customary practice

• It was mentioned that it is a customary practice of the families in Kanyakumari to honour deceased elders by garlanding their graveyard before conducting any family function. 
• However, the petitioner claimed that his two brothers were hindering him from completing the said formality. 
• The petitioner lodged a complaint on April 5, seeking adequate police protection for fencing his property in his village. 
• He approached the court to direct the state and police authorities to act in accordance with the complaint filed and to provide him with adequate police protection. 
• However, when the matter came up for hearing, the counsel for the petitioner, M Ragadeesh Kumar, limited his prayer to that his client may be permitted to visit his parents’ graveyard before the occasion of his daughter’s puberty function and sought the indulgence of this court. 
• The state was represented by the additional public prosecutor S Ravi. 
• It was later placed on record that the petitioner organised his daughter’s puberty function on April 12.

No cooperation, no festival

Previously, in an unrelated case, the Madras High Court warned two rival groups at a temple that there would be “no festival this year” after observing their non-cooperation in organising the festival at the allegedly private temple. The court later directed a state-led celebration to avoid law and order problems.

Justice A D Jagadish Chandira was dealing with a case where one S Senkottaiyan Dharmakartha sought directions to restrict the police from providing protection to any other person to conduct a festival separately at the Sree Maha Mariamman Temple situated in Moliyappalli village.

“If the petitioner and the rival parties are not able to come together and conduct a temple festival, it is better that no temple festival is conducted… Since it is contended that the temple festival is going to be held from 17.02.2026…there shall be a direction to the Inspector, HR & CE (Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department), Thiruchengode to conduct the festival this year,” the Madras High Court said in its February 13 order.