“It is the responsibility of everyone to refrain from issuing statements that can fan racial sentiments and disrupt public order,” the home minister said in a Facebook post.

Early this morning, a group of 50 Malay men intruded into the Sri Maha Mariamman Temple which led to about 200 Indian men rushing to the scene and cordoning off the temple.

Police have since denied there was anything racial about the scuffle.

Seven men were injured and police have seized swords and rubber hoses.

Meanwhile, Inspector-General of Police Fuzi Harun said the 17 men who were detained to facilitate investigations were locals.

“We have identified all the individuals involved in this incident, including the instigators, and we will call them in soon,” he said, adding that the situation was now under control.

He said three Indian men and three Malay men were injured in the scuffle, while a policeman from Serdang also sustained injuries, including a broken arm.

Fuzi went on to caution people against speculating about the scuffle or issue irresponsible statements that would aggravate the situation.

On the denial by One City – the developer which owns the plot of land where the temple is located – of its involvement in the incident, Fuzi said police were still investigating the matter.

“On whether they are involved, we can’t say yes or know. It’s too early to come to a conclusion.”

Earlier, One City rubbished a claim that it was behind the violence as alleged by a faction in the temple who had been resisting a court judgment to relocate.

“We have done all we can to ensure a most peaceful resolution, including delaying the relocation of the temple several times,” it said in a statement.

The temple had been slated for relocation on Nov 22 as part of an agreement involving One City, the Selangor state government and two claimants to the temple management, K Chellapa and M Nagaraju.

However, a rival faction of the temple insisted that the temple should remain at its present location instead of being relocated some 3km away despite agreeing to a consent judgement on the issue in 2014.

They claimed the judgment had been breached.