The Madras High Court has observed that the fundamental right to practise and profess religion does not confer a right to pollute rivers or other water bodies, expressing serious concern over the large-scale dumping of clothes and other ritual waste into the Thamirabarani river during obsequies and death-related ceremonies.
In an order passed on July 9, the Division Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi held that the freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution is expressly subject to public health and cannot be exercised in a manner that causes environmental degradation or infringes upon the rights of others.
The Court observed that devotees are free to perform rituals they consider spiritually beneficial, provided such practices do not adversely affect ecology or violate statutory environmental safeguards.
The observations came while the Court was hearing a writ petition arising from proceedings initiated under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, concerning a mandapam in Tirunelveli district.
During the proceedings, the issue of extensive pollution of the Thamirabarani river was brought to the Court’s notice, prompting the Bench to examine the larger environmental implications of the ritual practices. The Court also suo motu impleaded the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department to assist in addressing the issue.
The Bench was informed that thousands of devotees visit the bathing ghats of the perennial Thamirabarani river, particularly from Papanasam onwards, to perform obsequies for deceased family members. As part of these rituals, used and unused clothes, towels, slippers, holy ash, photographs and other articles associated with the deceased are routinely discarded directly into the river, causing significant environmental pollution.
The Court interacted with environmental activist Thiru Moorthy, who, along with members of the Aripukarargal community, has been engaged in cleaning the river. He informed the Bench that nearly one tonne of garments and clothes is dumped into the river every day. Referring to a booklet placed before it, the Court noted that river-cleaning operations conducted between May 7 and May 28, 2026, resulted in the removal of between 86 and 90 tonnes of discarded clothes.
The clean-up also yielded about 2.2 tonnes of holy ash, 1,385 kilograms of plastic waste, 374 kilograms of sanitary napkins and diapers, 220 kilograms of glass bottles, around 700 kilograms of burnt bricks and 115 kilograms of slippers. The Bench described the figures as alarming and indicative of the alarming scale of pollution affecting the river ecosystem.
Expressing concern over the environmental consequences, the Court observed that polyester and other synthetic garments are non-biodegradable and remain trapped in the riverbed, creating breeding grounds for harmful bacteria, including E. coli. It further noted that aquatic species such as the Indian Black Turtle and the Indian Flapshell Turtle, both native to the Thamirabarani river, are vulnerable to becoming entangled in the discarded fabric, leading to suffocation.
The Bench also observed that broken glass from discarded photo frames poses a serious hazard to aquatic life as well as volunteers engaged in river-cleaning activities.
Emphasising the constitutional and statutory framework governing environmental protection, the Bench held that access to clean and pollution-free water forms an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also referred to Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, and Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, both of which prohibit acts that contaminate or pollute water bodies.
The Court further reminded citizens of their fundamental duties under Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h) of the Constitution to protect and improve the natural environment, including rivers and lakes, and to develop scientific temper.
Observing that the statistics placed before it reflected an ecological crisis, the Court directed the administration to undertake public awareness campaigns on a war footing to educate devotees about the environmental consequences of dumping ritual articles into the river. It also indicated that a combination of awareness measures and effective enforcement may be necessary to prevent further pollution and ensure compliance with environmental laws.
At the same time, the Bench refrained from issuing an immediate prohibitory order, observing that the issue concerns the religious beliefs and sentiments of a large number of Hindus. It held that although the statutory mandate against river pollution must be enforced, the principles of natural justice required that all affected stakeholders be given an opportunity to present their views before any binding directions were issued.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Tirunelveli District Collector to issue a public notice announcing that the matter would be taken up on July 16. Religious organisations, environmental activists and other stakeholders have been permitted to intervene and make their submissions.
The district administration has also been directed to place before the Court a comprehensive set of proposals suggesting a permanent, sustainable and environmentally compliant solution to prevent pollution of the Thamirabarani River while accommodating legitimate religious practices.
