A post spreading across Sri Lankan Tamil social media claims that Manivannan, the former mayor of Jaffna Municipal Council, went to court demanding the demolition of the historic Sudumalai Amman temple, said to have been built without permission. Because the temple is one of the most revered in Jaffna, the claim spread quickly and stirred strong feelings. Fact Crescendo investigated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Social Media Posts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Facebook<\/strong><\/a> | <\/strong>Archived Link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The post, uploaded on 28 July 2026, said that the former Jaffna mayor Manivannan had filed a lawsuit demanding the demolition of the historic Sudumalai Amman temple, built without permission. It went on to ask why the same “social concern” was not extended to the Thaiyiddy Tissa Vihara, also said to have been built without permission, and framed this as a question raised by social activists. The post was shared widely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to some online news reports<\/a>, after all structures except the sanctum, the tower and the chariot-porch were removed last September, new construction began; and former Jaffna mayor V. Manivannan, through his attorney, filed a petition at the Jaffna High Court arguing the new buildings were being put up without proper building approval and asking that they be pulled down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fact Check<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n If the former mayor had really gone to court to demolish a temple as historically significant as Sudumalai Amman, mainstream media would have reported it. In our search we found no such report in any established outlet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, we did find that a petition concerning ongoing construction work at the Sudumalai Amman temple had been taken up for hearing at the Jaffna High Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Manivannan Says He Did Not File the Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n We contacted Manivannan directly to ask whether he had, as claimed, filed a lawsuit to demolish the temple. He told us he had filed no such case. He explained that some residents living around the Sudumalai temple had come to him because parts of the temple were broken down last September and new buildings were being raised in their place without approval, and they wanted the work stopped through legal action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He told those residents that demolishing temple structures is a decision for the temple administration, so no case could be brought over that, but that a case could be filed over the new building being constructed without proper approval. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The residents’ main concern was that the temple tower and the chariot-porch, which are still standing, should not be demolished. Manivannan said he appeared only as an attorney on behalf of the residents who brought the case, and that reports claiming he himself filed it are entirely false.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Asked about the Thaiyiddi vihara mentioned in the viral post, Manivannan said that if the owners of any allegedly illegal construction there came forward to file a case, he would be willing to take that case forward as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Manipay Pradeshiya Sabha Confirms No Approval Was Granted<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n We contacted the Manipay Pradeshiya Sabha to ask whether proper approval had in fact been obtained for the new buildings at the Sudumalai temple, and whether separate permission is needed to demolish an old structure. They told us the temple administration has now applied for permission to construct the new building, but that permission has not yet been granted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They added that carrying out construction while approval is still pending is an unauthorized act. Separate permission is not sought merely to demolish a structure; rather, approval is mandatory to build a new structure in the place of an old one, and once such approval is granted the old structure would need to be removed so the new one can be built. When approval is sought to put up a new building where an old one stands, the relevant party must submit proper supporting evidence, the Sabha said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Temple Administration Yet to Respond<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n We tried to reach the Sudumalai temple administration but could not get through. We will update this article with their account once we are able to contact them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regional Journalists Confirm the Post Is False<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Local Sudumalai journalists told us the shared claim, that the former Jaffna mayor filed a case to demolish the temple, is false. According to them, what is true is that proper approval was not obtained to demolish the temple and put up a new building there, and that Manivannan appeared as the attorney for the residents who filed a case against that construction. The claim that Manivannan himself filed the case is false, they said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Local Residents Confirm They Filed the Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Residents of the Sudumalai area told us: “Manivannan did not file this case as you have heard. Some of us residents filed it, so that the remaining tower and chariot-porch of the temple are not demolished any further. This temple is bound up with many historic memories for us, so it must not be pulled down. And the buildings now being demolished and newly constructed are not being done with proper approval either.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The residents also gave us a copy of the notice issued in connection with the case. Notably, Manivannan’s name does not appear among the petitioners named in it. That copy is shown below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Follow Us on Social Media<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Facebook<\/strong><\/a> | <\/strong>Twitter<\/strong><\/a> | <\/strong>Instagram<\/strong><\/a> | <\/strong>Google News<\/strong><\/a> | <\/strong>TikTok<\/strong><\/a> | <\/strong>YouTube<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on our investigation, the claim that Jaffna’s former mayor filed a lawsuit to demolish the unauthorized Sudumalai Amman temple is false. In fact, it was residents of the area themselves who filed the case, both against the temple construction work begun without proper approval and to prevent the surviving tower and chariot-porch from being demolished. Manivannan appeared in that case only as the attorney representing those residents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/srilanka.factcrescendo.com\/english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/image-92.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/srilanka.factcrescendo.com\/english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/image-93.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n