Supreme Court to Hear Challenge in Kapaleeswarar Temple Peacock Idol Case on September 2
The Supreme Court will hear on September 2 a petition challenging the Madras High Court’s decision to quash the FIR in the 2004 Kapaleeswarar Temple peacock idol case involving industrialist Venu Srinivasan.

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge in Kapaleeswarar Temple Peacock Idol Case on September 2
The Supreme Court is set to hear on September 2 a challenge against the Madras High Court’s decision to quash an FIR linked to the alleged replacement of a peacock idol at Chennai’s historic Kapaleeswarar Temple during renovation work in 2004.
The petition has been filed by temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan against industrialist Venu Srinivasan and another respondent. The matter is listed as Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7650/2024 in the Supreme Court’s advance list and is part of a group of connected cases scheduled for consideration.
The dispute dates back to renovation work carried out at the Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple in Mylapore, Chennai, in 2004. Allegations were later raised that an antique peacock idol associated with the temple had been replaced during the renovation without the required authorisation.
At the time, Venu Srinivasan was associated with a government-appointed committee involved in the temple renovation process. Narasimhan alleged that the original idol had been removed and replaced unlawfully.
Following the allegations, an FIR was registered and the Tamil Nadu Idol Wing investigated the matter. A final report was subsequently filed naming Srinivasan and others in connection with the case.
Srinivasan has denied involvement in any alleged theft or unauthorised replacement of the idol. He had also secured anticipatory bail during the earlier proceedings.
In February 2024, the Madras High Court quashed the FIR. Narasimhan subsequently approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s order.
The apex court’s September 2 hearing will focus on the challenge to the FIR’s quashing. The proceedings could determine whether the Madras High Court’s decision remains in force or whether the case faces further legal scrutiny.
Tags
More Stories

Supreme Court Refuses Plea Seeking Ethanol Percentage Disclosure on Petrol Nozzles and Bills
31 Aug 2026

Sonam Wangchuk Says CJP Leaders Wanted to End Protest After July 20 Crackdown
31 Aug 2026

Bombay High Court Cancels Clerk Typing Test After Technical Glitches, Orders Fresh Exam
30 Aug 2026

Mumbai to Get Two More Ring Roads as MMRDA Plans 307-km Network of New Loops
30 Aug 2026
