The Court firmly rejected the Tamil Nadu government’s objections and exposed the DMK administration’s refusal to comply with earlier judicial directions, making it clear that imaginary law-and-order fears cannot override fundamental rights. The Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan categorically rejected the State’s claims that the ritual could cause law-and-order problems, calling such apprehensions an “imaginary ghost” lacking any legal or factual basis.

This verdict is a crucial victory for Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, reaffirming the right of Hindus to freely practise their religion and preserve age-old customs. It also sends a strong message against the long-standing pattern of state interference, neglect, and erosion of Hindu temple rights in Tamil Nadu, where thousands of temples have lost vast tracts of land under government control.

The judiciary has provided both support and protection. It is now the duty of the State and police to implement the order in letter and spirit, without obstruction.

GHHRC welcomes this judgment as a victory for religious freedom, rule of law, and Hindu civilizational rights. We thank Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan for upholding the right of worship of Hindus.

At the center of the protest was a solemn tribute to Dipu Chandra Das, a young Hindu garment worker from Bangladesh whose brutal lynching has become a chilling symbol of this ongoing human rights crisis.

The Brutal Killing of Dipu Chandra Das

On the night of 18 December 2025, Dipu Chandra Das was attacked by a large mob in Bhaluka Upazila, Mymensingh district, Bangladesh, following unverified allegations of blasphemy. What followed was an act of barbarity that shocked consciences across borders. Dipu was beaten mercilessly, tied to a tree, and set on fire by the mob. His charred remains were later recovered and sent for autopsy.

Reports indicate that the allegations against him were never substantiated. Yet, in an environment where mob justice routinely replaces due process, especially when the accused belongs to a religious minority, Dipu was denied even the most basic protection of law. Disturbingly, local accountability mechanisms failed, and as of now, justice remains elusive.

Dipu’s murder was not an isolated eruption of violence. It unfolded against the backdrop of wider political instability and communal tension in Bangladesh, where Hindu minorities have repeatedly found themselves vulnerable to targeted attacks, often triggered by rumours, religious accusations, or orchestrated mob mobilisation.

A Pattern, Not an Exception

The GHHRC-led march emphasized a critical truth: Dipu Chandra Das is not an exception, he is one among many.

In recent months alone, Bangladesh has witnessed multiple incidents of mob violence, arson, and lynching involving Hindu victims. Homes of Hindu families have been set ablaze, temples vandalized, and individuals assaulted or killed under the pretext of blasphemy or communal provocation. In several cases, perpetrators have acted with near impunity, reinforcing a climate of fear and silence among minority communities.

Beyond Bangladesh, similar patterns emerge across regions where Hindus face religious persecution through targeted killings, forced displacement, social boycotts, and systemic discrimination. These incidents rarely receive sustained international attention, and when they do, they are often dismissed as “isolated” or “localised” disturbances rather than recognized as symptoms of a broader human rights failure.

The Protest March: Tribute, Solidarity, and Demand for Action

The protest march organized by GHHRC paid tribute to Dipu Chandra Das and stood in solidarity with countless Hindu victims whose suffering remains unacknowledged. Participants carried placards, raised slogans for justice, and demanded accountability, not only from perpetrators, but from systems that repeatedly fail to protect vulnerable minorities.

The demonstration made it clear that silence and selective outrage cannot be allowed to normalize such violence. The continued targeting of Hindus, whether through lynch mobs or systemic neglect, constitutes a serious human rights concern that demands urgent global response.

GHHRC’s Call to Governments and the International Community

Through this peaceful yet resolute demonstration, GHHRC called upon State governments, the Government of India, Hon’ble Prime Minister Narendra Modi, world leaders, international human rights organizations, and the global community to act decisively.

The demands are clear:

• Justice and swift legal action in cases like the lynching of Dipu Chandra Das
• International monitoring and documentation of anti-Hindu violence
• Consistent application of human rights standards, without religious or political bias
• Concrete safeguards to ensure the safety, dignity, and freedom of Hindu minorities across borders

GHHRC stressed that human rights cannot be conditional, selective, or politically convenient. Every life lost to mob violence is an indictment of global inaction.

Reaffirming Commitment

The march reaffirmed GHHRC’s unwavering commitment to standing with Hindus everywhere, amplifying their voices, documenting their suffering, and pressing relentlessly for meaningful action. It was not merely a protest, but a declaration that the global Hindu community will no longer remain silent in the face of repeated injustice.

Justice for Dipu Chandra Das is not just about one life, it is about confronting a system that allows such brutality to recur. Until accountability is ensured and protection becomes reality, GHHRC remains resolute in its mission to defend the safety, dignity, and fundamental human rights of Hindus worldwide.

A  40-year-old Hindu man,  P. Poorna Chandran, died after  self-immolation near a police booth close to the  Periyar statue at the Natham flyover. Chandran, a resident of  Narimedu, Madurai, worked as a  medical representative and also owned a  mini-auto. He is survived by his  wife and two young children.

A Protest Born of Despair

Before taking the extreme step, Chandran reportedly sent  voice messages expressing deep anguish over the ongoing  Karthigai Deepam / Deepasthambham dispute at Thirupparankundram Hill. He believed that the authorities had  failed to implement the Madras High Court’s direction allowing the lighting of the sacred Deepam, a ritual practiced for generations.

According to police statements, Chandran felt helpless and unheard. His act was not impulsive. It reflected  intense personal distress, stemming from the denial of a religious practice that he, like millions of Hindus, considered sacred and non-negotiable.

Political and Social Reactions

BJP Tamil Nadu President K. Annamalai expressed deep sorrow, stating that Chandran was an  ardent devotee of Lord Murugan. While urging people to remain calm, he called upon citizens to place faith in the judiciary.

Several Hindu organisations, including  Hindu Munnani and  Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), sharply criticised the  DMK government, accusing it of:

• Delaying justice
• Politicising a religious matter
• Failing to comply with High Court orders
• Creating an environment where religious rights were repeatedly denied

Questions the State Must Answer

This was not merely a personal tragedy. It has become a moment of  collective reckoning.

When a citizen believes that:

• Courts have spoken, yet the State refuses to act
• Peaceful religious practices are obstructed
• Constitutional remedies are rendered ineffective

The consequences can be devastating.

This incident raises deeply troubling questions:

• Was this death the result of  systemic negligence?
• Did  political appeasement and bias play a role in prolonging the dispute?
• When lawful religious expression is repeatedly denied, does the State bear moral responsibility for the fallout?

Is the death of  Poorna Chandran merely a suicide or does it reflect a  State-instigated failure?

A Haunting Line That Must Not Be Ignored

Deepam denied.
A life lost.

This is not about politics alone.
It is about  governance, constitutional duty, and human cost.

Faith disputes must never be allowed to reach a point where a citizen feels that  death is the only form of protest left. Accountability is not optional. Silence is not neutral.

Poorna Chandran’s death demands answers, not slogans, not deflection, and not delay.

The  Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, is one of Tamil Nadu’s most ancient Hindu temples, with  well-documented scriptural, historical, and cultural significance. The hill itself has been revered as a  sacred Hindu site for centuries, forming an inseparable part of Hindu worship and religious life. Any later structure or administrative claim cannot negate, override, or supersede the  established Hindu religious character of the hill.

A Fundamentally Flawed Premise

The Waqf Board’s claim rests on a flawed understanding of Hindu religious geography. In  Sanatana Dharma, the sanctity of a temple does not end at the walls of the shrine.  Hills, hilltops, circumambulatory paths, ritual access routes, and sacred markers such as Deepastambams are integral to worship and religious practice.

For Hindus,  Thirupparankundram Hill is a unified sacred landscape, not a collection of divisible parcels or isolated structures. Attempts to classify individual elements on the hill as Waqf property effectively seek to  fragment a living Hindu religious site, undermining its religious continuity and civilizational integrity.

Impact on Hindu Religious Practice

The presence of the dargah has, over time, resulted in  restrictions on Hindu religious practices, particularly during festivals and rituals that require  unhindered access to the hilltop and associated sacred spaces. While administrative accommodation between communities is permissible, it  cannot lawfully result in the dilution or subordination of Hindu religious rights at a site that is intrinsically and historically Hindu.

Constitutional Safeguards Cannot Be Ignored

From a constitutional perspective, the issue is clear.

• Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India guarantee the right to freely practice religion and allow religious denominations to manage their own religious affairs. These protections extend not only to temples as buildings, but also to  sacred geography and integral ritual spaces, including temple hills and Deepasthambham.
• The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in  Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (1954) clearly held that while the State may regulate  secular administration, it  cannot interfere with essential religious practices or fragment sacred religious spaces.

Any attempt to carve out portions of a  historically sacred Hindu hill and reclassify them as Waqf property runs directly contrary to this settled constitutional position.

Thirupparankundram Is Indivisibly Sacred

The  Global Hindu Human Rights Collective (GHHRC) reiterates that Hindu religious claims are  not confined to temple premises or individual structures. For Hindus,  the entire Thirupparankundram Hill is sacred.

The placement of deities on hilltops and temples at the foothills is a  core, non-negotiable feature of Sanatana Dharma, rooted in scripture, lived practice, and civilizational history. This sacred geography cannot be fragmented by administrative reclassification or selective property claims.

Any effort to reclassify parts of this sacred landscape as Waqf property is  not merely a legal disagreement. It directly impacts  Hindu religious continuity, access, worship, and heritage.

GHHRC will continue to advocate  lawfully and constitutionally for the protection of  Hindu sacred spaces, religious practices, and civilizational rights, ensuring that history, faith, and constitutional guarantees are neither diluted nor erased.

That attack was  not carried out by Hindus.
Not by Indians.
Not by the Government of India.
Not by Prime Minister  Narendra Modi, nor by his supporters.
And notably,  not even in India.

Yet, instead of using his platform to confront and expose the  intolerant, violent ideology that forced him to live underground for decades under the shadow of a  fatwa, Rushdie has chosen a different target:  India, its ancient  Hindu civilizational roots, and a  democratically elected, globally respected leadership.

A Missed Moral Stand

Rushdie could have spent his interview speaking about the ideology that:

• Tried to silence him through murder
• Took away decades of his life
• Destroyed his sense of safety
• And permanently damaged his body

Instead, he chose to  vilify India, distort facts about the Indian government, and portray the  reclaiming of Hindu history as a greater crime than the very ideology that almost killed him and has killed millions worldwide.

To equate historical correction and civilizational self-assertion with violence is not moral clarity. It is  intellectual dishonesty.

What India Is Actually Doing

What Rushdie condemns as “rewriting history” is, in truth, the  restoration of historical truth and the  redemption of Hindus their right to:

• Life
• Land
• Faith
• Culture
• And historical memory

Rights that were  systematically stripped away through centuries of  barbaric invasions, carried out in the name of a violent religious ideology, the very same ideology responsible for the attack on Rushdie himself.

An Inconvenient Historical Truth

The historical record is not ambiguous.

Islamic invaders:

• Looted temples
• Massacred civilians
• Enslaved populations
• Raped and brutalized women
• Plundered wealth
• Attempted the erasure of Hindu civilization

India today is finally courageous enough to  acknowledge and discuss one of the largest, longest-running civilizational genocides in human history the genocide of the Hindu civilization.

That truth is uncomfortable. But it is not false.

A Question of Gratitude and Honesty

It is worth remembering that  India stood by Salman Rushdie.
The Indian government  lifted the ban on his book.
Hindus defended his right to free expression, even when they disagreed with him.

For Rushdie to now  turn his anger toward the very civilization and people who supported him, while remaining conspicuously restrained toward the ideology that maimed him, is not courage it is selective outrage.

Face the Truth

Salman Rushdie may have lost vision in one eye due to Islamist violence.
But it would be tragic if  that partial blindness were allowed to become total blindness to truth.

The world today is suffering under the weight of the  most violent religious ideology of the modern era the same ideology that caused his suffering.

India is not the problem for naming it.
Hindus are not the enemy for reclaiming their history.

Truth does not become hatred simply because it is spoken aloud.

A bench comprising  Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and  Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions filed by  cooperative banks in Kerala, which had challenged a directive of the  Kerala High Court ordering the return of deposits belonging to the  Thirunelly Temple Devaswom.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice made an unequivocal observation:

“Temple money, first of all, belongs to the deity. So therefore, this money has to be saved, protected and utilised only for the interests of the temple. It can’t become a source of income or survival for a cooperative bank.”

The bench dismissed the petitions, while granting liberty to the cooperative banks to approach the High Court only for a limited extension of time to comply with the repayment directive.

A Crucial Judicial Affirmation

This ruling strikes at the heart of a long-standing issue: the  systematic diversion, misuse, and retention of temple funds by state-controlled bodies and financial institutions. The Supreme Court’s observation reaffirms a fundamental principle—that  temple assets are not government revenue, nor are they instruments for subsidising unrelated institutions.

Temple funds exist solely for:

• The maintenance of temples
• Performance of rituals
• Welfare of devotees
• Preservation of religious and cultural heritage

Any deviation from this purpose violates both  religious trust and constitutional morality.

GHHRC’s Stand

The  Global Hindu Human Rights Collective (GHHRC) welcomes this  landmark judgment by the apex court of India. It once again validates what devotees have asserted for decades:  Hindu temple wealth is sacred and inviolable.

GHHRC demands:

• Immediate  restoration of all temple funds currently held by State Governments, cooperative banks, and other institutions
• An end to the practice of treating Hindu religious wealth as expendable public finance
• Structural reforms to ensure  temple funds remain under temple control, used strictly for religious and charitable purposes connected to Hindu institutions

Hindu money is Hindu’s right.

And the Supreme Court has made that position unmistakably clear.

This is not an isolated administrative lapse. It reflects a  larger and systematic erosion of Hindu religious rights—the right to worship, to follow ancestral customs, and to access sacred spaces. When courts explicitly uphold these rights, yet the State continues to obstruct their exercise, the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore.

Temple Administration and the Growing Land Crisis

Alongside repeated interference in ritual practices, Tamil Nadu’s temples continue to suffer  severe administrative and property-related damage under prolonged State control through the HR & CE Department.

Temple Land Crisis in Tamil Nadu:

• Over  5 lakh acres of temple land exist on official records under HR & CE control
• Tens of thousands of acres remain encroached, unaccounted for, disputed, or poorly documented
• Since 2021, the State reports recovering  7,000+ acres valued at over  ₹7,000 crore
• Independent audits and court observations confirm that  thousands of acres are still lost to encroachment
• Inadequate surveys, outdated records, and mismatched boundaries continue to stall recovery
• Hundreds of cases remain pending before revenue authorities and the judiciary

The repeated denial of ritual rights and the continued mismanagement of temple properties are  not mere administrative failures. They raise  serious constitutional and legal concerns.

1. HR & CE Act: State Control Has Constitutional Limits

The  Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 grants the State administrative oversight—but  not the authority to interfere in core religious practices.

This limitation was clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in the  Shirur Mutt judgment (1954), which held that:

• The State may regulate  secular aspects such as finance and administration
• It  cannot obstruct essential religious practices or deny devotees access to sacred spaces

The  Karthigai Deepam ritual, practiced for generations and deeply embedded in Hindu tradition, falls squarely within the realm of  protected religious practice. Blocking it under the guise of administration—especially after a court directive—violates this constitutional boundary.

2. Fundamental Rights Under the Constitution Are Being Violated

The incident at Thirupparankundram implicates multiple constitutional protections:

Article 25

➡ Guarantees the freedom to profess and practice religion. Peaceful ritual worship, including Deepam lighting, is explicitly protected.

Article 26

➡ Grants religious denominations autonomy over their religious affairs, including rituals and customary worship.

Article 14

➡ Ensures equality before the law. Selective obstruction of Hindu religious practices constitutes discriminatory State action.

Article 21

➡ The right to life and personal liberty includes the right to live with dignity and practice one’s faith without unreasonable State interference. Denial of worship despite judicial protection violates this right.

Articles 32 and 226

➡ Provide immediate judicial remedies when the State violates fundamental rights, enabling devotees to approach High Courts and the Supreme Court for enforcement.

3. Essential Religious Practices: Clear Judicial Position

The  Shirur Mutt judgment (1954) established that religion includes not only belief but also  rituals, ceremonies, and modes of worship integral to the faith.

Courts determine what constitutes an essential practice, and  long-standing, community-recognized rituals such as the Karthigai Deepam clearly qualify for constitutional protection. The State has  no authority to override such practices through arbitrary administrative decisions, nor can it ignore court orders affirming them.

A Pattern That Demands Accountability

The Thirupparankundram incident is not about law and order. It is about  constitutional compliance, religious freedom, and equal treatment. When the State repeatedly interferes with Hindu worship while retaining control over temples and their assets, it raises unavoidable questions about intent, neutrality, and governance.

The continued erosion of Hindu religious rights in Tamil Nadu can no longer be dismissed as coincidence. It demands  legal accountability, administrative reform, and strict enforcement of constitutional limits on State power.

Faith cannot be governed by political discretion.
And constitutional rights cannot be selectively enforced.

This moment is the culmination of an unwavering sankalp carried across generations. Millions of Hindus, through faith, patience, and steadfast commitment, safeguarded the spiritual and cultural essence of Bharat, ensuring that Dharma was neither forgotten nor abandoned.

Gratitude is due to the Honourable Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji and the Honourable Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Shri Yogi Adityanath ji, whose leadership and resolve played a decisive role in restoring the faith and confidence of countless Hindus during this historic journey. Their efforts helped translate a long-standing civilizational aspiration into reality.

May this sacred moment inspire unity, responsibility, and renewed commitment not only to celebrate our heritage, but to protect our Dharma, our culture, and our civilizational values for generations to come.

According to the FIR, a prayer gathering was allegedly used to influence vulnerable Hindu families toward religious conversion through inducements. The matter is now under investigation, and due legal process will determine culpability. What is notable, however, is the speed and seriousness with which the Rajasthan government has acted under the new law.

What the Law Seeks to Prevent

The Dharma Swatantrata Adhinyam, 2025 is designed to prevent conversions carried out through:

• Allurement
• Fraud
• Coercion
• Misrepresentation

It also places regulatory oversight on mass religious events conducted with the intent of conversion, ensuring that religious freedom is not misused to exploit economic distress, social vulnerability, or lack of awareness.

Rajasthan’s prompt enforcement signals that the law is not merely symbolic, but intended to function as a practical safeguard for social harmony and individual consent.

A Larger National Question

This development raises a critical question for the rest of the country:

Why have other states not implemented equally strong and enforceable anti-conversion laws to protect vulnerable communities?

Multiple studies and field reports on predatory proselytization have documented a disproportionate number of conversion-related complaints in states such as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, and West Bengal. These incidents are often linked to inducements tied to healthcare, education, or financial assistance, blurring the line between genuine faith choice and coercive influence.

GHHRC’s Appeal

The Global Hindu Human Rights Collective (GHHRC) reiterates that religious freedom must always be accompanied by informed consent and legal accountability. Freedom of belief does not include the freedom to exploit vulnerability.

GHHRC therefore appeals to:

• State governments to enact and enforce robust anti-conversion laws
• The Central Government to explore a uniform legal framework that protects Bharat’s native communities while upholding constitutional values

Strong laws, when applied fairly and transparently, do not threaten harmony—they preserve it.

Rajasthan’s enforcement sets a precedent. The question now is whether the rest of the country is prepared to follow through with the same seriousness and resolve.

This unaccountable commission, operating thousands of miles away with no democratic mandate and no responsibility toward the people of India, presumes to lecture the world’s largest democracy on pluralism and minority rights. A democracy where minorities enjoy constitutional protections, political representation, cultural freedom, and legal safeguards at a scale many Western nations themselves struggle to uphold.

USCIRF’s record reveals a clear pattern. It has shown an obsessive fixation on Hindu-majority India, routinely whitewashing radical elements while weaponizing the language of “religious freedom” as a geopolitical tool. Instead of balanced assessment, it manufactures alarmist narratives, cherry-picks selective data, and amplifies fringe voices to project a distorted and misleading image of Bharat. In several instances, it has gone so far as to platform political parties and activist groups known for overt anti-Hindu positions, presenting them misleadingly as neutral “experts.”

The irony is stark. An organization plagued by opaque funding, questionable affiliations, and a history of internal controversies now claims moral authority to judge a civilization that has sheltered, absorbed, and protected diversity for millennia.

The Global Hindu Human Rights Collective (GHHRC) unequivocally condemns these fallacious, motivated, and deeply irresponsible narratives, crafted not to protect human rights but to create a false international smokescreen around Bharat.

USCIRF has lost credibility.
It has lost neutrality.
And increasingly, it has lost relevance.

No biased report from a discredited commission can alter India’s civilizational trajectory or its constitutional commitment to pluralism.

The Reality USCIRF Consistently Ignores

One fact remains undeniable: Muslims in India have flourished.

Since Independence in 1947, India’s Muslim population has grown from approximately 9–10% to around 15% today. This steady demographic rise reflects constitutional protection, social mobility, political participation, access to healthcare, and full civil rights.

Now contrast this with the fate of Hindus in neighboring Islamic nations—countries USCIRF rarely scrutinizes with the same intensity:

• Pakistan: Hindus constituted nearly 15–20% at Partition; today they are reduced to around 1.5–2%, victims of persecution, forced conversions, and systemic discrimination.
• Bangladesh: Hindus made up approximately 22% in 1951; today they stand at around 8%, after decades of targeted violence and sustained state apathy.
• Afghanistan: Once home to hundreds of thousands of Hindus and Sikhs, the community is now almost extinct, reduced to a handful of families living under fear and coercion.

This is the contrast USCIRF refuses to acknowledge.

In India, minorities grow.
In neighboring Islamic states, Hindu minorities vanish.

Yet USCIRF continues to malign Bharat—the only civilization in the region that still constitutionally protects every faith.

Truth does not fear scrutiny.
Selective outrage does.