MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has issued a statutory notice to the Dindigul Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department, V Sabarmathy, in connection to her order bringing the Muthalamman temple at Uthapuram in Madurai district under the department’s direct control.

In an order dated August 31, she directed that the Muthalamman temple at Uthapuram be brought under the direct control of the HR&CE department, stating that the move was necessary to ensure the right to worship guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Sabarmathy noted that the dispute over worship at the temple had been pending for around 30 years. Though temple festivals had been conducted over the years, customary abhishekam and utsavam for the deities had not been performed, she observed.

"Taking these reasons into consideration, and to find a permanent solution to the worship-related problems of the petition temple by executing the order to be passed within legal rules regarding the rights dispute between the two communities, it is essential to establish the right to worship for everyone as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, and to bring the petition temple under the direct control of the HR&CE," she stated in the order.

Sabarmathy also stated that the order was passed pursuant to the Madurai Bench's April 21, 2025 order in a writ appeal. The High Court had directed the Joint Commissioner to initiate proceedings under Section 63(e) of the HR&CE Act to determine the customs or established usage of the temple specifically concerning the form of worship of the Sthala Virutcham (Peepal tree).

However, G Pandi of Uthapuram, who filed the contempt petition, contended that the Joint Commissioner had exceeded the scope of the High Court's direction. He said the court had empowered her only to decide the customary practice concerning worship of the Peepal tree and not to take over the administration of the entire temple.

He further pointed out that the High Court, in its April 21, 2025 order, had specifically directed that the petitioner and members of his community should not be prevented from administering the temple.

The petitioner contended that the Joint Commissioner had also directed the Assistant Commissioner, Theni, and the Inspector, Peraiyur, to take immediate steps to implement the order.

He alleged that Sabarmathy's order had deprived his community of its longstanding right to administer the temple.