The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ordered the removal of a statue of EV Ramasamy Naicker installed on land belonging to the Brahma Sirakandeeswarar Temple in Kandiyur, Thanjavur district, as reported in News18 Tamil.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices Velmurugan and Ramakrishnan, following a petition filed by Rama Ravikumar, a resident of Ezhumalai in Madurai district, challenging the installation of the statue on temple-owned land.
In its order, the High Court directed the Thanjavur District Collector to remove the EVR statue from the temple land and relocate it to another place within four weeks.
View this post on Instagram
Background
The Brahma Sira Kandeeswarar Temple at Kandiyur is regarded as one of Tamil Nadu’s ancient Shiva temples. It is traditionally believed to be the first among the eight Ashta Veeratanam temples associated with Lord Shiva and is also one of the revered Paadal Petra Sthalams praised in the seventh-century Thevaram hymns.
According to Ravikumar, he filed an application under the Right to Information Act after learning that a statue of Periyar had been erected on temple property. He said the reply, received on May 14 from the Executive Officer-cum-Assistant Public Information Officer of the temple, confirmed that the temple is an ancient shrine, with its Mahakumbabishekam having been conducted on 4 September 2025.
The RTI reply reportedly further stated that no permission or approval had been granted by the HR&CE Department for installing the statue of E.V. Ramasamy on temple land. Ravikumar said this official response established that the statue had been installed without departmental authorization.
The RTI response also listed several encroachments on temple property that have been identified for removal by the Endowments Officer. These include encroachments recorded as MB No. 19/2022/E2 dated 2 July 2025 involving Cho. Raja; MB No. 23/2022/E2 dated 5 August 2025 involving Mohammed Ismail; MB No. 26/2022/E2 dated 5 August 2025 involving Dharmaraj; MB No. 27/2022/E2 dated 3 September 2025 involving Jagadeesan; MB No. 28/2022/E2 dated 3 September 2025 involving Mary Pappristal; MB No. 43/2022/E2 dated 16 July 2025 involving Dhinesh Kumar and O.R.H. Farooq; and MB No. 45/2022/E2 dated 16 July 2025 involving C. Sekar and O.R. Mohammed Farooq.
The reply also noted that a steel wire mesh fence around the temple compound had been erected using temple funds amounting to ₹1,34,915.
Ravikumar said the Periyar statue had been installed in 1990 near the temple compound wall. He described the RTI reply as shocking, stating that it confirmed the statue had been erected without the approval of the HR&CE Department and therefore stood on temple property without official authorization.
He further argued that the issue extended beyond the question of permission. According to him, thousands of devotees visit the temple every year, and the inscription beneath the statue is offensive to Hindu devotees. The inscription reads, “There is no God, there is no God, there is no God at all. He who created God is a fool. He who propagates God is a scoundrel. He who worships God is a barbarian.”
Ravikumar maintained that the presence of such an inscription within temple premises was incompatible with the religious character and sanctity of the shrine.
He also alleged that during the tenure of Dravidian governments, Periyar statues had been installed near prominent Hindu temples, including at Kandiyur and Srirangam. According to him, the proximity of such statues to major pilgrimage centres has repeatedly become a source of concern among devotees, who have sought their relocation. He further pointed to the presence of political party flagpoles near the temple, describing them as another visual intrusion around the sacred premises.
Urging the HR&CE Department, temple administration and district authorities to remove or relocate the statue, Ravikumar said that legal proceedings would be considered if no action was taken.
He further argued that a statue of EV Ramasamy, whom he described as a staunch agnostic and critic of Hindu deities, had no place within or adjacent to Hindu temple property. He also claimed that comparable statues are not found near churches or mosques and questioned why, according to him, only Hindu temples are subjected to such installations. He alleged that this reflected hostility directed specifically towards Hindu traditions, customs and religious beliefs, and maintained that the statue affected both the sanctity and sacredness of the temple.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
