Supreme Court Refuses To Decide Auspicious Time For Temple Ritual, Rejects Plea On Tamil Nadu Kumbhabhishekam Timing
Thanks for studying this submit, do not forget to subscribe!
SC declines to intervene in fixing timing for Thiruchendur temple consecration ceremony, citing lack of spiritual experience. “We can’t resolve what’s the auspicious time,” the Bench noticed whereas dismissing the Vidhayahar’s plea.
New Delhi: As we speak, on July 3, the Supreme Courtroom of India declined to listen to a plea filed by the Vidhayahar (hereditary non secular authority) of the Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Thiruchendur, Tamil Nadu.
The plea challenged the timing of the temple’s upcoming Kumbhabhishekam (consecration) ceremony scheduled for July 7, 2025.
A two-judge Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice N Kotiswar Singh refused to intervene with the choice of the Madras Excessive Courtroom, which had authorised the advice of a five-member committee of Agama consultants.
The committee had prompt that the Kumbhabhishekam be held between 6:00 AM and 6:47 AM on July 7.
Throughout the listening to, the Supreme Courtroom clearly acknowledged that it doesn’t have the aptitude or non secular experience to find out the right or “auspicious” timing for non secular ceremonies.
The Bench noticed,
“We can’t resolve what’s the auspicious time. Let’s imagine in future if they need to seek the advice of with you, kind a committee and many others.”
The petitioner, who serves as the standard non secular authority or Vidhayahar on the temple, had initially approached the Madras Excessive Courtroom in search of to repair the ceremony’s timing throughout a unique time slot – 12:05 PM to 12:47 PM.
The plea was made based mostly on his interpretation of Agamic and Vedic customs. Nonetheless, the Excessive Courtroom, contemplating differing views amongst consultants, had fashioned a five-member committee of senior clergymen – which included the petitioner himself – to find out the timing.
Following this, the petitioner opposed the formation of the committee and approached the Supreme Courtroom earlier as effectively.
At the moment, the apex court docket had refused to intervene straight and allowed the petitioner to hunt a evaluation of the Excessive Courtroom’s choice.
The Madras Excessive Courtroom then reconsidered the problem and handed a second order once more rejecting the petitioner’s claims.
ALSO READ: VIP Treatment To Actor Dileep Blocked Other Pilgrims’ Darshan At Sabarimala: High Court
Sad with the second choice, the petitioner as soon as once more approached the Supreme Courtroom. This time, he argued that the State had wrongly chosen the ceremony timing by itself with out giving correct weight to his skilled non secular opinion.
He claimed that, as Vidhayahar, he held customary authority to repair such timings based mostly on non secular texts and that the appointment of a separate committee was unfair and towards the traditions of the temple.
The State of Tamil Nadu, nonetheless, argued that there have been a number of opinions and confusion relating to the auspicious time for the occasion. They identified that even the petitioner had not supplied a transparent preliminary place.
Therefore, the Excessive Courtroom had appropriately constituted a bunch of 5 consultants to achieve a consensus. The State additionally highlighted that the timing was fastened based mostly on a 4:1 majority throughout the skilled panel, of which the petitioner himself was a member.
The Supreme Courtroom, after listening to each side, refused to intervene. It acknowledged that non secular rituals and their timing fall exterior the scope of judicial evaluation when based mostly on skilled non secular opinion.
The Bench additional famous,
“We’re of the view that the orders impugned don’t name for any interference significantly, when, as per the second impugned order, it has been directed that temples shall observe the sooner apply of in search of opinion from the Vidhayahar by way of written communications alone, topic to Vidhyahar indicating whether or not it’s draft or ultimate Pattolia, in respect of date and timing of the ceremonies. We, subsequently, decline to train our jurisdiction beneath Article 136 of the Structure of India.”
This order clearly exhibits the Courtroom’s stance that issues involving non secular customs, until involving basic rights or public curiosity considerations, must be resolved throughout the non secular framework itself and never by way of authorized interference.
Thus, the petition was dismissed and the timing for the Kumbhabhishekam ceremony – as fastened by the skilled committee – stands unchanged.
Senior Advocate Ok Parameshwar and advocates A Karthik, Smrithi Suresh, Sugam Agrawal, and Ujjwal Sharma represented the petitioner.
On behalf of the State, Senior Advocates M Sathyanaryanan and R Shunmugasundaram appeared together with advocates Misha Rohatgi, Nakul Mohta, Sneha Menan, Shakeena AG, M Muthugeethayan, and B Karunakaran.
Case Title:
R Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthirigal v. The State of Tamil Nadu.
Learn Order:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Temple
