Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Thiruchendur Temple Vidhayahar’s Plea Against Consecration Ceremony Timing
The Supreme Courtroom not too long ago refused to entertain the petition filed by Vidhayahar of Thiruchendur’s Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple, in Tamil Nadu, contesting fixation of timing of a consecration ceremony (Kumbhabhishekam) on the temple on July 7 primarily based on suggestions of a committee comprising 5 clergymen.
A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N Kotiswar Singh declined to entertain beneath Article 136 jurisdiction the Vidhayahar’s plea that the timing of the ceremony shall be as per his opinion.
“having regard to the character of the trigger espoused within the writ petition filed earlier than the Excessive Courtroom, we’re of the view that the orders impugned don’t name for any interference notably, when, as per the second impugned order, it has been directed that temples shall observe the sooner follow of looking for opinion from the Vidhayahar by written communications alone, topic to Vidhyahar indicating whether or not it’s draft or last Pattolia, in respect of date and timing of the ceremonies”, the Courtroom stated.
Throughout the listening to, whereas the petitioner-Vidhayahar asserted that timing of the ceremony must be as per his opinion (when it comes to outdated customs) and contested appointment of the 5-priest professional committee, the respondents argued that the rights had been to be decided in an everyday swimsuit, which is pending.
The respondents additional identified that the 5-priest committee included the petitioner and gave its suggestion primarily based on a 4:1 majority. In addition they contended that the Excessive Courtroom constituted the professional committee because the petitioner himself was confused and gave a number of opinions; this was nevertheless disputed by the petitioner, who submitted that no matter confusion was there was eliminated by the astrological calendar printed later.
Be that as it might, the highest Courtroom refused to intrude with the dispute.
Background
The petitioner-Vidhayahar’s grievance was that, as an alternative of contemplating the auspicious timing of 12:05 p.m. to 12:47 p.m. fastened by him for consecration of the temple, the HR & CE officers proceeded to repair the timings as 06:00 a.m to 06:50 a.m. which is inauspicious.
This timing was approved by the Madras Excessive Courtroom. The related judgment was handed by the Courtroom’s Madurai Bench in a overview petition filed by the petitioner, whereby it refused to intrude with the choice of the 5-priest committee (consultants in Agamic rules) to conduct the ceremony between 06:00 am and 06:47 am on July 7.
The professional committee was appointed following a plea filed by the petitioner towards the ‘inauspicious’ timing chosen by the authorities. He later filed a overview petition questioning the appointment of the professional committee.
The Excessive Courtroom noticed that it was constrained to nominate the committee because the Vidhayahar had given three totally different Pattolais with out mentioning that the primary two Pattolais had been draft in nature. A division bench comprising Justices S Srimathy and R Vijayakumar stated,
“had the Vidhayahar been cautious and identified in his first two Pattolais that they’re draft in nature and he would come out with a good Pattolai after going by the Panchangam in future, this confusion wouldn’t have arisen. The Committee, that was shaped by this Courtroom with the consent of each the events, was already convened and the members of the stated Committee have, by majority, determined concerning the timings of the consecration.”
Look: Sr Adv Okay Parameshwar, AoR A Karthik, Advocates Smrithi Suresh, Sugam Agrawal and Ujjwal Sharma (for petitioner); Sr Advs R Shunmugasundaram and M Sathyanaryanan, AoRs Misha Rohatgi and B Karunakaran, Advocates Nakul Mohta, Sneha Menan, Shakeena, AG and M Muthugeethayan (for respondents)
Case Title: R.SIVARAMA SUBRAMANIYA SASTHIRIGAL v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, SLP(C) No. 017191 – 017194 / 2025
