Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Panel Formed To Decide Schedule For Tiruchendur Temple Consecration

The Supreme Court today (June 4) declined to interfere in a plea challenging the order of the Madras High Court, which constituted a committee to decide the schedule for Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) for Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur.

The Court however, granted liberty to file a review petition against the impugned order. 

The bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice AG Masih was hearing a plea by the Vidhayahar of the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur. 

The plea is challenging the order of the Madras High Court, which constituted a committee of 5 members to decide the date and timing for the Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony). 

It is the contention of the petitioner that even before the proceedings before the High Court, out of 5 members, three members have already formed an opinion for a date and time which is different from the petitioner's view. 

The plea states: " It is pertinent to note that three out of five members of the committee had, even prior to the present proceedings gave an opinion at the instance of the Respondents/Govt authorities, suggesting a time different than what was recommended by the Petitioner, thereby making the constitution of the committee, biased, prejudicial and a futile exercise."  

The plea states that, instead of adjudicating upon the matter, the creation of such a committee was arbitrary and fails to address the issue of constitutional religious rights of the petitioner. 

"The Hon'ble High Court, therefore, has failed to address the core constitutional and religious grievance, that the State authorities cannot override religious autonomy and temple customs, particularly when the Petitioner is the only recognised figure competent to fix the timing. The order under challenge is thus arbitrary, devoid of impartiality, and suffers from a manifest error of law." 

State Interference In Deciding Schedule For Temple Rituals Arbitrary: Petitioner Contends

During the hearing, Sr Advocate K Parameshwar, appearing for the petitioner, highlighted that the state's interference in deciding the schedule for the religious ceremony was unwarranted. He submitted : 

"The prescription of a mahurat is purely a religious function; it has nothing to do with regulation of the state." 

He further stressed that the temple in question is considered one of the 6 largest temples of Lord Karthikay in Tamil Nadu. Since the petitioner belongs to a family which was traditionally tasked to decide the schedules for religious ceremonies of the temple, Parameshwar expressed that :

"This amounts to a complete state takeover of our essential functions, my lords." 

On the aspect of 3 members already forming an opinion, Justice Mishra initially suggested that a new committee be formed to decide on the issue. He said, "We cannot keep it pending". 

However, later, while declining to interfere in the matter, it noted that the petitioner had already partaken in the committee meetings, and a report was also prepared. 

Considering the same, the petitioner was allowed to file a review petition before the High Court. The order stated : 

"We permit the petitioner to prefer a review petition. At this stage. the counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has already participated in the meetings held by the committee and a report has already been submitted."

"With liberty to approach this Court again." 

Background 

The petitioners had approached the High Court under a writ petition challenging the decision of the State Authorities to unilaterally fix the timing for the Kumbhabhishekam of the temple on 07.07.2025 at 06:00 AM – 07:00 am without considering the advice and recommendation of the Vidhayahar (Petitioner No. 1), who is the sole religious authority empowered by custom, usage, and Agama Shastra to determine such timings

It was the case of the petitioner that he had "consistently and formally communicated that only the Abhijit Muhurtham (12:05 PM to 12:45 PM) on the said date is the spiritually and astrological appropriate timing, based on ancient texts like Kala Prahasiha, Kala Vidhanam, and Sarva Mukurtha Chinthamani." 

However, the High Court, instead of adjudicating the matter constituted a 5 member committee consisting the following : 

1. The Vidhayahar (Petitioner No. 1);

2. Sivasri K.Pitchai Gurukkal; Chief Priest of Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Temple, Pillaiyarpatti

3. Sri K. Subramaniaru (Thanthri of Sree Subramaniaswamy Temple, Thiruchendur);

4. Sivasri S.K. Raja Pattar @ Chandrasekar Pattar; Sthanikar of Arulmigu Subramaniyaswamy Thirukoil, Thiruparankundram; and

5. Sri Melsanthi, Iyyappan Temple, Sabarimala. Kerala. 

The petitioner has moved the Supreme Court now contending that in light of the earlier contrary opinions given by three out five of the committee members, "the very formation of this committee is fundamentally flawed and renders the process void of neutrality."

It also contends that 3 out of 5 members are not related to the temple in question and are alien to the traditions and rituals of the temple. 

"Admittedly 3 out of the 5 members have no connection with the Thiruchendur temple. Constitution of Committee with such external members ignores the fundamental principle that rituals, traditions, and practices vary significantly between temples, each with unique religious significance and historical context. Thus, they lack the necessary competence and specific knowledge required to adjudicate on rituals and practices particular to this temple." 

The SLP was filed with the assistance of AOR A. Karthik.

Case Details : R.Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthirigal & Etc v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.| SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 16297-98 OF 2025