CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department to file a detailed report explaining how a century-old mandapam at the Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Kancheepuram was found not in accordance with Vastu principles. Until a report is submitted, the court ordered that no renovation work shall be carried out at the temple.

The direction was issued during a hearing of a petition filed by S Vasantha and V Shanmugavel, who alleged that renovation works were under way at the Subramaniya Swamy Temple, located on Krishnan Street, Kancheepuram, and that a boundary wall was being constructed adjacent to their private property.

When the matter came up before Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, the State submitted that the petitioners had encroached upon the road and therefore could not complain that their ingress and egress were affected. It was further submitted that, as the mandapam was irregular and not in accordance with Vastu, permission was obtained from the Heritage Committee to demolish the entire structure and reconstruct it using the same structural stones.

However, upon observing the original photographs of the temple placed before the court, the judge stated that the mandapam appeared to be an ancient stone-built structure and well-constructed, remarking that it would be extremely difficult to find workmanship competent to recreate the mandapam in the same manner.

Noting that the temple had existed for over 100 years, the court questioned the sudden allegation of irregularity. On examining photographs taken before demolition, it was observed that the mandapam appeared structurally sound, making the demolition seem unconscionable. The judge therefore ordered the report to be placed on record and directed the authorities to file detailed reports explaining the necessity for demolition.

He said that further work will be on hold until the report is filed.

The court also directed that an affidavit regarding the age of the temple be filed by the competent authorities and adjourned the matter to February 13.