SC refuses to intervene in Tiruchendur Temple Kumbhabhishekam schedule dispute
However, the apex court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court with a review petition.
A vacation bench comprising Justice P.K. Mishra and Justice A.G. Masih was hearing the plea filed by R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, the Vidhayahar of the Tiruchendur temple.
The petitioner contended that the High Court's decision to form a five-member committee was arbitrary, biased, and violative of the temple's traditional religious autonomy.
According to the petitioner, three out of the five committee members had already expressed opinions on the muhurat (auspicious time) for the ceremony prior to the constitution of the committee at the instance of the state authorities, making the process 'prejudicial and futile.'
"The prescription of a muhurat is purely a religious function; it has nothing to do with regulation by the state," argued Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar for the petitioner.
"This amounts to a complete state takeover of our essential religious functions. The committee's constitution is itself flawed."
The petitioner also argued that of the five committee members, three have no traditional or historical connection to the Tiruchendur temple and belong to different sampradayas (religious denominations). He submitted that this composition disregards temple-specific traditions and Agamic customs.
The petitioner approached the Madras High Court earlier, challenging the state government's unilateral decision to fix the Kumbhabhishekam timing as July 7, 2025, between 6:00 AM – 7:00 AM, allegedly without consulting the temple's Vidhayahar.
The petitioner claimed the astrologically appropriate timing was the Abhijit Muhurtham (12:05 PM – 12:45 PM) based on ancient scriptures such as Kala Prahasiha and Sarva Muhurtha Chintamani.
Instead of adjudicating on the muhurat directly, the High Court constituted a five-member committee including the Vidhayahar (petitioner), Sivasri K. Pitchai Gurukkal (Chief Priest, Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Temple, Pillaiyarpatti), K. Subramaniaru (Thanthri, Sree Subramaniaswamy Temple, Tiruchendur, Sivasri S.K. Raja Pattar @ Chandrasekar Pattar (Sthanikar, Arulmigu Subramaniyaswamy Thirukoil, Thiruparankundram) and Melsanthi, Iyyappan Temple, Sabarimala, Kerala.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the constitution of this committee was devoid of neutrality and ignored the unique traditions of the Tiruchendur temple.
Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar argued, 'This is one of the largest temples of Lord Karthikeya. Deciding the muhurat is a religious act, not a state function. This committee was flawed from inception.'
Justice P.K. Mishra said, 'The committee says you consented. Then why did you agree? Perhaps form another committee?'
Parameshwar said, 'Three members are from different sampradayas. This is an essential religious practice and not subject to judicial review.'
The apex court said, 'We are not interfering. But when you agreed to the High Court's formation of a committee, how can you challenge it now?'
Parameshwar argued, 'The state has no role here. My family has been performing this function for generations.'
The bench declined to pass any direction interfering with the High Court's order, citing that the petitioner had already participated in the committee meetings and a report was prepared.
However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the Madras High Court, noting that the petitioner can approach the Supreme Court again if necessary.
'Considering the petitioner's submission that the formation of the committee is itself flawed, we permit the petitioner to prefer a review petition. Respondents submit that the petitioner has already participated in the meetings of the committee and a report has been submitted. Be that as it may, the petitioner, if they so wish, may approach the High Court with a review petition, with liberty to approach this Court again,' the SC said. UNI SNG SSP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
a few seconds ago
- India Today
Thick-skinned: Mohan Yadav slams Rahul Gandhi for repeated attacks on institutions
Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Mohan Yadav on Friday renewed his attacks on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, accusing him of stubbornly continuing his line of criticism in elections despite judicial censure, calling him "thick-skinned".Yadav's attack came in specific reference to the Congress leader being recently reprimanded by the Supreme Court for claiming that India ceded 2,000 sq km of its territory to China and the rejection of his claim of "vote chori" by the Election at a program on Independence Day, Yadav described Gandhi as so "thick-skinned" that "even repeated reprimands by the Supreme Court and the High Court have no effect on him". Yadav took aim at Gandhi's continued allegations against institutions, saying, "On the contrary, he repeatedly puts institutions in the dock. Despite being punished by the Supreme Court for statements like Chowkidar chor hai, he did not change his language and attitude".The chief minister added, "Don't know from where he has started talking about chori-chori".These comments come a day after Mohan Yadav accused Gandhi of being an "urban Naxal", while speaking to India Today also sought to underscore the resilience of India's democratic framework. "The world's largest democracy is strong because of the Election Commission. The Election Commission has passed every test".He implied that Gandhi's allegations, rather than fostering transparency, actually target and weaken public trust in foundational escalation follows Rahul Gandhi's ongoing "vote chori" campaign, in which he accuses the Election Commission and the BJP of electoral malpractice. Gandhi's claims have been publicly rebuked by the poll August 14, the poll panel dismissed the use of phrases like "vote chori" calling them "dirty phrases" that fuel misleading pointed out that India has upheld the principle of "one person, one vote" since 1951–52 and demanded Gandhi produce proof—specifically via a written affidavit—rather than general accusations that, in their words, "colour all the electors of India as 'chor' without any proof.- EndsMust Watch
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Vaishnavite' does not refer to brahmins alone, says Madras HC
Chennai: The term 'Vaishnavite' is not confined to just brahmins but carries a broader meaning, said , turning down a plea to permit only Hindu Vaishnavite brahmins to participate in an auction for temple shops. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Clarifying that all devotees who worship Lord Perumal fall under the category of Vaishnavites and that no discrimination should be made on basis of community, Justice N Anand Venkatesh rejected a petition by L Ravi, who insisted that only a Hindu Vaishnavite brahmin should be permitted to participate in the auction to run the 'prasadha kadai' (temple prasadam shop) inside Arulmigu Devarajaswamy Temple in Kancheepuram. "The relief sought virtually amounts to perpetuating the caste system, which does not augur well for a true Vaishnavite. There will be no compromise on the ritual practices/agamas and also the experience of preparing prasadham in a Vaishnavite temple earlier for five years. If that is ensured, it does not matter whether the participant belongs to a brahmin community," said Justice Anand Venkatesh. Therefore, the court does not find any ground to interfere with the relevant clause contained in the auction notice, and the temple authorities can proceed further with the auction and finalise the same in favour of the highest bidder, the court said. According to the petitioner, there was a specific condition imposed in the earlier auction notice to the effect that only a Hindu Vaishnavite brahmin could participate in the tender for the prasadha kadai, whereas this vital condition has been removed in the present notice dated July 31. In the present notice, it has been stated that the participant must comply with the ritual practices of the temple, comply with the agamas, and must have prepared prasadam in a Vaishnavite temple with five years of experience. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now What is missing are the words 'Hindu Vaishnavite brahmin,' the petitioner said. "The only right that has been claimed by the petitioner is that this practice has been followed for a long time and, therefore, it has to be continued," said the court. Opposing the plea, the temple authorities contended that insofar as madapalli (temple kitchen) is attached to the same for the purpose of preparing prasadam for the deities, the rituals and agamas are strictly followed. However, the present case involves a prasadha kadai where there is no such requirement that only a Hindu Vaishnavite brahmin must participate in the auction.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Regulate stray dog population, shelters not the solution: RSS chief
RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat (File photo) NEW DELHI: RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has said the stray dog issue in Delhi-NCR should be addressed through measures to regulate their population, rather than confining them to shelters - an approach that echoes the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules mandated under law. Bhagwat's comments come amid renewed debate over the Supreme Court's Aug 11 order directing Delhi-NCR authorities to permanently relocate all strays to shelters. "All animals have the right to live. The problem can be solved only by regulating the population of street dogs, but it cannot be resolved by putting them in shelters," said Bhagwat, a veterinary science graduate, while addressing a religious congregation at Jawaharlal Nehru Indoor Stadium in Cuttack Thursday. He added, "Sheltering all street dogs is not a practical solution. The only effective way is to implement sterilisation and vaccination, as already prescribed in law. " He referred to a cultural practice involving cattle rearing, saying that while milking a cow, some milk is taken for human use and the rest is left for the calf. "This is the art of striking a balance between man and nature. Nature should be conserved by maintaining a balance between development and the environment," he said. SC's Aug 11 order has been criticised by politicians, animal rights groups and scientists, who argue it contradicts the ABC (Dogs) Rules, 2023. On Wednesday, CJI B R Gavai withdrew the suo motu case from the earlier bench, and a larger three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath heard the matter afresh on Thursday.
