SC declines to interfere in fixing timing for Thiruchendur temple consecration ceremony, citing lack of religious expertise. “We cannot decide what is the auspicious time,” the Bench observed while dismissing the Vidhayahar’s plea.
New Delhi: Today, on July 3, the Supreme Court of India declined to hear a plea filed by the Vidhayahar (hereditary religious authority) of the Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Thiruchendur, Tamil Nadu.
The plea challenged the timing of the temple’s upcoming Kumbhabhishekam (consecration) ceremony scheduled for July 7, 2025.
A two-judge Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice N Kotiswar Singh refused to interfere with the decision of the Madras High Court, which had approved the recommendation of a five-member committee of Agama experts.
The committee had suggested that the Kumbhabhishekam be held between 6:00 AM and 6:47 AM on July 7.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court clearly stated that it does not have the capability or religious expertise to determine the correct or “auspicious” timing for religious ceremonies.
The Bench observed,
“We cannot decide what is the auspicious time. We could say in future if they should consult with you, form a committee etc.”
The petitioner, who serves as the traditional religious authority or Vidhayahar at the temple, had initially approached the Madras High Court seeking to fix the ceremony’s timing during a different time slot – 12:05 PM to 12:47 PM.
The plea was made based on his interpretation of Agamic and Vedic customs. However, the High Court, considering differing views among experts, had formed a five-member committee of senior priests – which included the petitioner himself – to determine the timing.
Following this, the petitioner opposed the formation of the committee and approached the Supreme Court earlier as well.
At that time, the apex court had refused to interfere directly and allowed the petitioner to seek a review of the High Court’s decision.
The Madras High Court then reconsidered the issue and passed a second order again rejecting the petitioner’s claims.
ALSO READ: VIP Treatment To Actor Dileep Blocked Other Pilgrims’ Darshan At Sabarimala: High Court
Unhappy with the second decision, the petitioner once again approached the Supreme Court. This time, he argued that the State had wrongly selected the ceremony timing on its own without giving proper weight to his expert religious opinion.
He claimed that, as Vidhayahar, he held customary authority to fix such timings based on religious texts and that the appointment of a separate committee was unfair and against the traditions of the temple.
The State of Tamil Nadu, however, argued that there were multiple opinions and confusion regarding the auspicious time for the event. They pointed out that even the petitioner had not provided a clear initial position.
Hence, the High Court had correctly constituted a group of five experts to reach a consensus. The State also highlighted that the timing was fixed based on a 4:1 majority within the expert panel, of which the petitioner himself was a member.
The Supreme Court, after listening to both sides, refused to intervene. It stated that religious rituals and their timing fall outside the scope of judicial review when based on expert religious opinion.
The Bench further noted,
“We are of the view that the orders impugned do not call for any interference particularly, when, as per the second impugned order, it has been directed that temples shall follow the earlier practice of seeking opinion from the Vidhayahar through written communications alone, subject to Vidhyahar indicating whether it is draft or final Pattolia, in respect of date and timing of the ceremonies. We, therefore, decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”
This order clearly shows the Court’s stance that matters involving religious customs, unless involving fundamental rights or public interest concerns, should be resolved within the religious framework itself and not through legal interference.
Thus, the petition was dismissed and the timing for the Kumbhabhishekam ceremony – as fixed by the expert committee – stands unchanged.
Senior Advocate K Parameshwar and advocates A Karthik, Smrithi Suresh, Sugam Agrawal, and Ujjwal Sharma represented the petitioner.
On behalf of the State, Senior Advocates M Sathyanaryanan and R Shunmugasundaram appeared along with advocates Misha Rohatgi, Nakul Mohta, Sneha Menan, Shakeena AG, M Muthugeethayan, and B Karunakaran.
Case Title:
R Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthirigal v. The State of Tamil Nadu.
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Temple
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
