Latest news with #Agamic
The Hindu
2 days ago
- General
- The Hindu
Supreme Court refuses to intervene in Madras High Court order on consecration rites in Tiruchendur temple
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 4, 2025) refused to intervene in a plea against a Madras High Court order constituting a committee to fix the schedule for Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) for Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Tiruchendur, Tamil Nadu. A Bench headed by Justice P. K. Mishra however allowed the petitioner, R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, the Vidhayahar at the temple, to file a review plea against the High Court order. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had directed the constitution of a committee of experts to decide the timing for conducting the consecration ceremony at the temple. The petitioner, in the High Court, had argued that he said he had been the Vidhayahar at the temple for the past 13 years. During temple festivals and other functions he had to fix the timings for their commencement, pujas and celebrations and point out customary and Agamic practices and principles to be adopted according to the nature of the deities and the functions, he had said in the High Court. He had argued in the High Court that the date (July 7) and the timing fixed for the ceremony were not suitable for the event. The petitioner had sought a direction to the authorities to follow the ancient texts and literature and declare the consecration ceremony.
United News of India
3 days ago
- General
- United News of India
SC refuses to intervene in Tiruchendur Temple Kumbhabhishekam schedule dispute
New Delhi, June 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to interfere with a plea challenging the constitution of a committee by the Madras High Court to decide the date and timing for the Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) of the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur. 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
The Hindu
21-05-2025
- General
- The Hindu
Experts' panel to decide on timing of Tiruchendur temple consecration: HC
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday directed that a committee comprising experts would decide on the timing for conducting the consecration ceremony of Tiruchendur Subramanya Swamy Temple in Thoothukudi district. A Division Bench of Justices S. Srimathy and R. Vijayakumar issued the direction on a batch of public interest litigation petitions, including the one filed by R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, the Vidhayahar at the temple. The petitioner said he had been the Vidhayahar at the temple for the past 13 years. During temple festivals and other functions he had to fix the timings for their commencement, pujas and celebrations and point out customary and Agamic practices and principles to be adopted according to the nature of the deities and the functions, he said. Under these circumstances, the authorities had fixed a date for the Kumbabhishekam (consecration ceremony) of the temple. The authorities without even consulting the petitioner, who was entrusted with the duty of fixing the date and the timing for such an important event as per the Agamic principles, Vedic practices and rituals, fixed them for the consecration, he said. He said the date (July 7) and the timing fixed for the ceremony were not suitable for the event. He sought a direction to the authorities to follow the ancient texts and literature and declare the consecration ceremony.
The Hindu
14-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Over 7,550 acres of temple land worth ₹7,871.23 crore retrieved in four years, says HR&CE Minister
Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments P. K. Sekarbabu on Wednesday said that a total of 7,560 acres of land belonging to temples worth ₹7,871.23 crore had been retrieved in the last four years. Speaking after releasing a book with details of the lands, he said that Chief Minister M. K. Stalin had drawn up a special programme as soon as he took over. The department got 38 tahsildars on deputation and encroachments were removed. Action has been taken on encroachers. Earlier, only the commissioner could initiate action and that has been changed now, he said. Steps have been taken to change the names on pattas of 648 temples corresponding to a total of 5,400 acres of land. The pattas are in the names of the respective deities. The e-chitta has been corrected for 4,491.47 acres and a rent of ₹1,046.31 crore has been collected. The department will complete measuring and marking two lakh acres of lands and planting stones in Mevalurkuppam in Kancheepuram district. Mr. Sekarbabu welcomed the order of the Supreme Court on archakar appointments and said that identification of Agamic and non-Agamic temples would be taken up soon and posts of archakars would be filled in non-Agamic temples.
The Hindu
14-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court requests panel to identify Agamic temples in Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 14, 2025) requested a committee formed by the Madras High Court to identify Agamic temples as against non-Agamic temples in Tamil Nadu in three months. A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal said once the Agamic temples are identified, status quo must prevail and no appointments of archakars (priests) must be made to them for the time being. 'Whatever the committee identifies as Agamic temples… don't touch it,' Justice Sundresh addressed senior advocate Dushyant Dave and Tamil Nadu Advocate General P.S. Raman. However, once the identification of Agamic temples are over, the State may go ahead and fill up the existing vacancies for archakars in the non-Agamic temples. The apex court said the committee headed by former Madras High Court judge Justice M. Chockalingam would conduct the identification exercise. One of its members, M.P. Sathyavel Murugan, against whom objections were raised, would not be part of the committee, the Bench recorded. The court further directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department of Tamil Nadu to fill up the existing vacancies of archakars and maniyams (temple workforce) in Rameswaram Ramanathaswamy Temple. Advocate Elephant Rajendran, who represented an intervention highlighting the vacancies in the Rameswaram Temple, said the appointments must be made in accordance with the customs and traditions. The petitioner, Srirangam Koil Miras Kainkaryaparagal Matrum Athanai Sarntha Koilgalin Miraskainkaryaparargalin Nalasangam, represented by senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar, said Agamic temples were very few in numbers. The petitioners were not concerned with the non-Agamic temples. Mr. Dave said Agamic temples were the most important temples. Mr. Dave and Mr. Raman argued that the petitioners have even challenged the stipend given to intern archakars. 'We [State] only want them to be trained for their religious duties,' Mr. Dave submitted. The court scheduled the next hearing in September 2025. In November 2023, the apex court had refused to vacate or modify its earlier interim order of status quo on priesthood in temples governed by age-old Agamas (post-Vedic scripture conveying ritual knowledge). The status quo order had been passed on the basis of a series of petitions alleging that the Tamil Nadu government was attempting to appoint 'non-believers' as archakars, contrary to the Agamas. The State had countered that appointments were a secular function entitled to the government. It had maintained that its intention was to have 'Hindus, irrespective of caste and creed, to be trained and qualified in order to be appointed as archakars under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department'.
