Today, on 28th January,The Supreme Court appointed Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul as mediator to resolve the Thengalai–Vadagalai Vaishnavite dispute over mantram and prabandham recitation at Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple, Kanchipuram. Stressing harmony, the Court preferred mediation to protect tradition and ensure coexistence.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court appointed retired Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul as a mediator to address a long-standing dispute between the Thengalai (southern sect) and Vadagalai (northern sect) Vaishnavite sects regarding the recitation of mantram and prabandham during ceremonial worship at the Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple in Kancheepuram.
The Supreme Court of India emphasising harmony over prolonged litigation, has proposed mediation to preserve centuries-old traditions while ensuring coexistence. The court was hearing a sensitive religious dispute between the Thengalai and Vadagalai Iyengar sects concerning the conduct of official worship rituals at the historic Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple, Kanchipuram.
The dispute traces its roots to divergent ritual practices followed by the two Iyengar sects, both of which trace their lineage to Sri Ramanujacharya. The controversy centres on who is entitled to conduct the official temple rituals, particularly in light of a 1915 judgment that has historically governed ritual practices at the temple.
ALSO READ: Religious Freedom and Secularism Under the Indian Constitution: The Imbalance
The rivalry between the two Iyengar sub-sects has persisted for over a century, with both asserting precedence in performing poojas and chanting mantras at the Varadharaja Perumal Temple. Tensions escalated dramatically when members of the Vadagalai and Thengalai communities clashed physically during a temple procession.
The Supreme Court’s decision follows a December 2025 judgment by the Madras High Court in Rajahamsam v. Narayanan, where a Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and S. Sounthar upheld the Thengalai community’s exclusive rights to perform the Adhiapaka Mirasi (official ceremonial worship) at the Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple, Kancheepuram.
The High Court dismissed objections from Vadagalai members who sought permission to recite their own mantram and prabandham during worship, asserting that such actions would contravene established judicial decrees and disrupt public order.
“The individual members of Northern Cult (Vadagalai sect) or any other worshippers can very well participate in the ceremonial worship of God by repeating what is recited by office holders doing Adhiapaka Service,” the Court stated.
It affirmed that the recitation of mantram, prabandham, and Thiruvaimozhi during ceremonial worship belongs exclusively to the Adhiapaka (temple staff responsible for recitation, chanting, and teaching of sacred texts) office holders.
Hearing before the Supreme Court:
During the hearing, counsel clarified that the petitioners are not opposed to additional prayers by either sect, but object to any alteration of the temple’s established rituals.
The counsel submitted,
“What we are concerned about, My Lord, is the 1915 judgment preserves the temple’s rituals as they have been. It does not say that the temple ritual should be changed. Yet, their case seeks to alter the established rituals—the shlokas, the prayers, the centuries-old practices.
-That is where the misunderstanding lies, and My Lord, I hope I am now expressing myself clearly: the temple ritual remains as it is; others are free to offer their rituals additionally, but they cannot change the temple’s ritual itself.”
The Chief Justice acknowledged the historical continuity of the earlier judgment and stressed the need for a practical and peaceful resolution.
CJI observed,
“That judgment has been followed faithfully until today, and we are happy to continue doing so.
-Right now, we are seeking a workable solution. We do not want the two sects, both devoted followers of the great Ramanuja, to end up fighting in court. That is not the way, and it is not a solution that can satisfy anyone’s devotion.”
The Bench highlighted that religious devotion should not become adversarial and underscored the Court’s role in facilitating consensus rather than imposing rigid outcomes.
Counsel for both parties agreed that the matter was suitable for mediation and proposed that the mediator should be a former judge well-versed in temple rituals, Tamil religious customs, and the historical judgments relevant to the dispute.
In this regard, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s name was suggested, considering his previous role as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court and his familiarity with the state’s traditions and institutions.
Recognising the sensitive religious and historical dimensions of the dispute, the Supreme Court proposed a mediation mechanism involving senior judicial figures with subject-matter sensitivity.
The Court stated:
“For these reasons, we propose that Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul be assisted by Justice Ram Subramaniam (mediator). The combination would ensure both judicial oversight and deep understanding of the rituals and traditions, which is essential given the sensitive nature of this matter.”
The proposed mediation aims to balance constitutional oversight, religious autonomy, and traditional continuity, ensuring that neither sect feels marginalised.
The Court acknowledged the mutual agreement between the parties that mediation should be handled by someone capable of understanding the subtleties of temple worship, denominational rights, and historical decrees, rather than reopening settled legal questions.
Until mediation is completed, the Supreme Court ordered strict maintenance of the status quo. The Court also stated that there should be no police presence within the temple, as such actions could be “very unpleasant” and may exacerbate tensions rather than help maintain peace.
The Bench clarified that neither sect should take actions that could provoke a law-and-order situation during the mediation process. Parties were granted the freedom to bring the matter back to the Court if a settlement is achieved or if any state intervention is deemed necessary.
CASE TITLE: S.NARAYANAN Versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. (SLP(C) No. 2855/2026 XII)