On June 4, 2025, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Madras High Court’s decision forming a five-member committee to fix the schedule for Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) of the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur.
The bench comprising Justice P.K. Mishra and Justice A.G. Masih heard the Special Leave Petition filed by the temple's Vidhayahar (Petitioner No.1), who challenged the High Court’s order. The petitioner claimed that three members of the newly formed committee had already formed a contrary opinion on the auspicious timing, even before High Court proceedings began.
Read also: SCBA flags SCAORA encroachment on common bar issues, urges CJI to intervene
“It is pertinent to note that three out of five members of the committee had, even prior to the present proceedings, given an opinion at the instance of the Respondents/Govt authorities, suggesting a time different than what was recommended by the Petitioner,” the plea stated.
The petitioner alleged that this committee was arbitrary, biased, and prejudicial, failing to consider the religious rights of the traditional authority. He argued that the High Court had ignored constitutional protections of religious autonomy and temple customs, especially when he alone is recognized as competent to fix the ritual timing.
“The Hon’ble High Court… failed to address the core constitutional and religious grievance, that the State authorities cannot override religious autonomy and temple customs,” the plea contended.
Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Halt Incineration of Bhopal Gas Tragedy Waste at Pithampur Facility
“State Has No Role in Religious Timing,” Senior Advocate Argues
Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, representing the petitioner, emphasized that selecting the muhurat (auspicious time) is a purely religious activity and should not involve state interference.
“The prescription of a mahurat is purely a religious function; it has nothing to do with regulation of the state,” he submitted before the court.
He further highlighted that the Tiruchendur temple is one of the six largest temples of Lord Karthikeya in Tamil Nadu, and his client comes from a lineage traditionally tasked with deciding such matters.
Read also: Tamil Nadu government moves Supreme Court against HC order on university vice-chancellor law
“This amounts to a complete state takeover of our essential functions, my lords,” Parameshwar added.
Initially, Justice P.K. Mishra hinted at forming a fresh committee, saying:
“We cannot keep it pending.”
However, the bench ultimately noted that the petitioner had already participated in the committee's meetings and a report had been submitted. Therefore, it allowed the petitioner to file a review petition before the High Court.
“We permit the petitioner to prefer a review petition… 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.”
The case originated from a High Court petition where the petitioner challenged the state’s decision to fix the Kumbhabhishekam timing on July 7, 2025, from 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM, without considering his religious recommendation. He had advised the Abhijit Muhurtham (12:05 PM to 12:45 PM) as per sacred texts like Kala Prahasiha, Kala Vidhanam, and Sarva Mukurtha Chinthamani.
Read also: Supreme Court raps murder convict for repeatedly filing pleas seeking more time to surrender
Instead of deciding the matter judicially, the High Court constituted a five-member panel including:
- The Vidhayahar (Petitioner No. 1)
- Sivasri K. Pitchai Gurukkal – Chief Priest, Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Temple, Pillaiyarpatti
- Sri K. Subramaniaru – Thanthri of Sree Subramaniaswamy Temple, Thiruchendur
- Sivasri S.K. Raja Pattar (Chandrasekar Pattar) – Sthanikar, Arulmigu Subramaniyaswamy Thirukoil, Thiruparankundram
- Sri Melsanthi, Iyyappan Temple, Sabarimala, Kerala
The petitioner argued that three out of five members were unrelated to the Tiruchendur temple and unfamiliar with its specific rituals.
“Admittedly 3 out of the 5 members have no connection with the Thiruchendur temple… thus, they lack the necessary competence and specific knowledge required to adjudicate on rituals and practices particular to this temple,” the plea stated.
The Supreme Court has now allowed the petitioner to seek a review before the High Court and granted liberty to approach the apex court again, if needed.
Case Details : R.Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthirigal & Etc v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.| SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 16297-98 OF 2025
