Is there any material showing that the Podhu Dikshitars were responsible for alterations to the temple? After the Supreme Court Bench asked that, it stayed the Madras High Court judgment that placed Chidambaram Nataraja Temple Administration under a five-member board, leaving the Dikshitars in charge for now.
New Delhi: A five-member board was to take over the Chidambaram Nataraja Temple from the Podhu Dikshitars under a Madras High Court judgment of October 30, but the Supreme Court on Wednesday, November 4, stayed that judgment and issued notice on the Dikshitars’ appeal [Sabhanayakar Temple v. State of Tamil Nadu].
The interim order was passed by a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi. Senior Advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan appeared for the Dikshitars, and Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta and Shekhar Naphde for the State of Tamil Nadu.
The Dikshitars’ case
Vaidyanathan argued that the High Court had gone beyond the dispute over access to the Kanaka Sabha and displaced the Dikshitars without fixing any deadline for restoring their control. He relied on the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, which set aside the appointment of a government executive officer to run the temple, as having settled the Dikshitars’ status as a religious denomination with the right to administer it.
He disputed that the Dikshitars were responsible for alterations to the structures, said audited accounts had been furnished, and told the Court that the judge presiding over the High Court Bench had, as Law Secretary, been involved in an earlier round of litigation over the temple.
The State’s response
The State relied on a Heritage Commission report documenting alterations to the temple, including changes to a passage leading to the Nataraja shrine, to which the Dikshitars have filed a response. It also raised concerns about the temple’s accounts.
The judgment under challenge
The dispute began with a May 2022 Tamil Nadu government order allowing devotees to have darshan from the Kanaka Sabha, the raised platform inside the temple where customary pujas are performed. The Dikshitars challenged it as an interference with their right under Article 26 to manage the temple’s religious affairs.
A Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice E. Manoharan upheld the government order on October 30, holding that worship from the Kanaka Sabha would not interfere with religious ceremonies. It went further, finding that modern constructions had damaged parts of the temple and that its accounts and property records needed scrutiny, and directed a board of two retired High Court judges, a retired IAS officer, the secretary of the Podhu Dikshitars and the HR&CE Secretary to take charge “till the ill is cured”. The board was empowered to regulate darshan, oversee finances and recover temple properties, while daily rituals and festivals were left to the Dikshitars.
What the Supreme Court ordered
During the hearing, the Bench asked whether there was any material to show that the Dikshitars were responsible for the alterations to the temple. The State had asked the Court to defer interim relief until it filed its reply; the Court declined and stayed the judgment:
“Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, we are of the considered view, the impugned judgment deserves to be stayed. Accordingly, it stands stayed.”
Why the order matters
The administration of the Chidambaram temple has been litigated for decades, and the 2014 ruling was read as settling the Dikshitars’ right to manage it. The stay restores the position as it stood before October 30 while the Supreme Court examines whether the High Court could, in a case about access to the Kanaka Sabha, hand day-to-day control to a court-appointed board. The competing claims on the alterations and the accounts remain to be decided; the Court has expressed no final view on them.
Case Title: Sabhanayakar Temple v. State of Tamil Nadu
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: November 4, 2026
Impugned: Madras High Court judgment dated October 30, 2026 (Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice E. Manoharan)
Appearances: Senior Advocates C.S. Vaidyanathan, Guru Krishnakumar, K. Parameshwar, J. Sai Deepak and Pinky Anand for the Dikshitars and supporting petitioners; Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta and Shekhar Naphde for the State