Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Thiruchendur Temple Vidhayahar's Plea Against Consecration Ceremony Timing

The Supreme Court recently refused to entertain the petition filed by Vidhayahar of Thiruchendur's Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple, in Tamil Nadu, contesting fixation of timing of a consecration ceremony (Kumbhabhishekam) at the temple on July 7 based on recommendations of a committee comprising 5 priests.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N Kotiswar Singh declined to entertain under Article 136 jurisdiction the Vidhayahar's plea that the timing of the ceremony shall be as per his opinion.

"having regard to the nature of the cause espoused in the writ petition filed before the High Court, 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", the Court said.

During the hearing, while the petitioner-Vidhayahar asserted that timing of the ceremony ought to be as per his opinion (in terms of old customs) and contested appointment of the 5-priest expert committee, the respondents argued that the rights were to be determined in a regular suit, which is pending.

The respondents further pointed out that the 5-priest committee included the petitioner and gave its recommendation based on a 4:1 majority. They also contended that the High Court constituted the expert committee as the petitioner himself was confused and gave multiple opinions; this was however disputed by the petitioner, who submitted that whatever confusion was there was removed by the astrological calendar published later.

Be that as it may, the top Court refused to interfere with the dispute.

Background

The petitioner-Vidhayahar's grievance was that, instead of considering the auspicious timing of 12:05 p.m. to 12:47 p.m. fixed by him for consecration of the temple, the HR & CE officials proceeded to fix the timings as 06:00 a.m to 06:50 a.m. which is inauspicious.

This timing was approved by the Madras High Court. The relevant judgment was passed by the Court's Madurai Bench in a review petition filed by the petitioner, whereby it refused to interfere with the decision of the 5-priest committee (experts in Agamic principles) to conduct the ceremony between 06:00 am and 06:47 am on July 7.

The expert committee was appointed following a plea filed by the petitioner against the 'inauspicious' timing chosen by the authorities. He later filed a review petition questioning the appointment of the expert committee.

The High Court observed that it was constrained to appoint the committee since the Vidhayahar had given three different Pattolais without mentioning that the first two Pattolais were draft in nature. A division bench comprising Justices S Srimathy and R Vijayakumar said,

"had the Vidhayahar been careful and pointed out in his first two Pattolais that they are draft in nature and he would come out with a fair Pattolai after going through the Panchangam in future, this confusion would not have arisen. The Committee, that was formed by this Court with the consent of both the parties, was already convened and the members of the said Committee have, by majority, decided about the timings of the consecration."

Appearance: Sr Adv K Parameshwar, AoR A Karthik, Advocates Smrithi Suresh, Sugam Agrawal and Ujjwal Sharma (for petitioner); Sr Advs R Shunmugasundaram and M Sathyanaryanan, AoRs Misha Rohatgi and B Karunakaran, Advocates Nakul Mohta, Sneha Menan, Shakeena, AG and M Muthugeethayan (for respondents)

Case Title: R.SIVARAMA SUBRAMANIYA SASTHIRIGAL v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, SLP(C) No. 017191 - 017194 / 2025

Click here to read the order