4 misguided claims surrounding KL temple making way for Masjid Madani

We refer to the public controversy surrounding the Devi Sri Pathrikalliamman temple in Masjid India over the past week. 
 
Subsequent to the resolution of the matter on March 25, 2025, the public space continues to be flooded with allegations and counter-allegations, some in inflammatory language against the temple. These allegations are wholly unfair, unjust and plainly incorrect.

We wish to set the record straight on key allegations that give an erroneous impression of the status and legal rights of the temple. The allegations are set out below and answered in turn:
 
1. The temple is 'haram'
 
a. This is plainly wrong and disregards the entire historical background and circumstances of the temple in that location. The temple was built long before Merdeka and remained in substantially the same location, despite some rebuilding in 2008 under Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur's (DBKL) instructions to allow for an access road to be made. Those extensive renovations were carried out with the knowledge and consent of DBKL, which proves that the temple was never "haram", but was always recognised by the authorities as legitimate.
 
b. Furthermore, given the history the legal position is not as simple or simplistic as it is made out to be. When Jakel bought the land in 2014, it was subject to the rights of the temple which was situated on the land. This is why we had earlier asked for the sale and purchase agreement between Jakel and DBKL to be disclosed. The legal position is that rights have been acquired by and subsist in the temple by equity and estoppel. Hence, it is plainly wrong to suggest that the temple is not legal, or has inferior rights as compared to the new land owner who came in a mere 10 years ago. Had the matter proceeded to Court those legal issues, and the issues arising under the National Heritage Act 2005 and other legislation, would have been presented and vigorously argued on behalf of the temple.

c. Further, the court would have scrutinised the Jakel sale & purchase agreement to resolve the competing rights and interests. Such an examination was undertaken in the landmark "Taman Rimba case" where the Federal Court examined the history of the case and found that the involvement of the mayor in the sale of the land to the purchasing party and yet later granting a development order to the purchaser was indeed a conflict of interest. 

Similar issues would have arisen in this case if it had gone to court, which demonstrates that the legal position goes far deeper than has been portrayed and poses serious questions. 

2. "The temple had a windfall due to the market value of the land"

The temple had its beginnings in the area in the 1890s, when the land was not registered to anyone and was of little economic value. To now value the land at the current market value, and pronounce it as an exorbitant gain to the temple is malicious and ill-intentioned. Assessing the land by value per square foot is quite meaningless as it is a place of worship, and not a commercial investment. Further, the government has affirmed that the new land will be gazetted as a place of worship, which means by law it cannot be sold for profit. 
 
3. "The temple is a trespasser"

It has been repeatedly said that the temple is a "penceroboh" or trespasser, and is now being rewarded with land despite its own "wrongdoing". 

A trespasser is a person who enters someone’s land without consent. How can the temple be dubbed "trespasser" when they were on the land first, long before anyone else? Long before Malaysia was even formed or DBKL or Jakel had even existed. 
 
4. "The temple unreasonably insisted upon staying on in order to get valuable new land"
 
The issue that ultimately arose was not of the temple’s making. It was always the temple’s wish to remain at the present site, and welcome the new mosque as its near neighbour.

However, matters were precipitated by a letter dated Feb 21, 2025 from DBKL, giving the temple committee three days to agree to move to an alternative site, which was far away from the Masjid India area and the large community of worshippers the temple served. 

To have accepted that unsuitable site would have removed all trace of the historical presence of the temple in the Masjid India locality. It would have been the obliteration of a piece of Malaysian religious and cultural history and the extinguishment of a key facet of the multi-cultural make-up of Masjid India. Other sites offered had to be rejected due to fundamental unsuitability. 

The new site 50m away from the current location was accepted by the temple on March 25 as it would remain among the community there and to some extent maintain the ethos and history of the temple.

We trust that the clarification we have provided will make clear some of the legal issues that arise in a case like this and will stop the misguided polemics that have multiplied around this issue.

Ambiga Sreenevasan and N Surendran are rights activists and lawyers.