Thiruchendur Temple Vidhayahar Moves Supreme Court Challenging Consecration Ceremony Timing Approved By HC

The Supreme Court will hear on July 1 a petition challenging the Madras High Court’s judgment, which approved the timing of the consecration ceremony at the Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Thiruchendur, Tamil Nadu.

The petition was filed by R.Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, the Vidhayahar of the temple, aggrieved by the High Court allowing the Kumbhabhishekam on July 7 between 6 a.m. to 6.47 a.m., as per the recommendation of a committee comprising experts in Agama principles.

The petitioner’s grievance was that, instead of considering the auspicious timing of 12.05 p.m to 12.47 p.m fixed by Vidhayahar of the temple for consecration of the temple, the HR & CE officials have proceeded to fix the timings as 6.00 a.m to 6.50 a.m. which is inauspicious.

The counsel for the petitioner orally mentioned the matter today before a bench comprising Justice K V Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh for urgent listing. When Justice Viswanathan asked which temple it was, the counsel replied, “Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruchendur.” “It is a good temple,” Justice Viswanathan commented.

“Last year did you fix the time?” Justice Viswanathan asked. “Yes. The High Court also recognised that it is I who am fixing the time,” replied the counsel.

“This year why you have been…you are still holding the post?” the judge asked. The counsel answered that he was still holding the position. He explained that the High Court constituted a committee and asked the committee to decide the timings.

At this juncture, Justice Viswanathan asked for the High Court’s order and the counsel handed over his iPad containing its soft copy. Justice Viswanathan pointed out that as per the High Court’s order, the temple has to follow the earlier procedure of seeking opinion from the Vidhayahar through written communications alone. The Vidhayahar shall indicate whether it is draft or final pattolai while giving opinion and fixing the timing, the High Court further directed.

However, the counsel submitted that the High Court has approved the timings fixed by the expert committee and that he has challenged the appointment of the committee as well.

The bench then agreed to list the matter on July 1. Although the counsel requested for a posting tomorrow, the bench declined.

The judgemnt was passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in a review petition filed by Subramaniya Sasthrigal. The High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the committee, which consists of five persons who are experts in Agamic principles, to conduct the ceremony between 6 am and 6.47 am on July 7.

The expert committee was appointed following a petition filed by Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal 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 observed, ” 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.”

“Considering the fact that the experts in the Agama principles have arrived at a opinion with regard to the timings of the consecration as 6.00 a.m to 6.47 a.m, we are not inclined to interfere in the said timings. However, we make it clear that this Court was constrained to form an Expert Committee only due to the fact that Vidhayahar of the temple had given three different Pattolais without mentioning that the first two Pattolais are draft in nature. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we uphold the formation of the Expert Committee and the timings fixed by them and this should not be taken as a precedent in future. Until a decision is rendered by a competent civil Court, the supremacy of the Vidhayahar in relation to the religious matters of the temple has to be protected. Therefore, the temple is directed to the earlier procedure of seeking opinion from the Vidhayahar through written communcation alone. The Vidhayahar shall indicate whether it is draft or final Pattolai while giving opinion and fixing the timing,” the High Court said.