New Delhi | June 25, 2025
A dispute over the muhurtham (auspicious timing) for the upcoming kumbhabhishekam (temple consecration) at the historic Thiruchendur Murugan Temple has now reached the Supreme Court of India, with the temple’s designated Vidhayāhar (ritual authority) challenging the Madras High Court’s approval of the ceremony’s schedule.
Ritual Authority vs Committee Recommendation
The petitioner, R. Sivarama Subramania Sasthrigal, is the officially recognized Vidhayāhar of the temple—responsible for issuing the final timing (pattolai) for major temple ceremonies under agama shastra (ritual law).
In his plea, Sasthrigal contends that:
• A High Court-appointed agama expert committee disregarded his final recommendation for a midday consecration slot and instead approved a morning muhurtham (6:00 AM to 6:47 AM) on July 7, 2025.
• The timing chosen was based on earlier drafts of his recommendation and not his final written “pattolai”, which clearly advised a noon window (12:05 PM to 12:45 PM).
• The committee process was allegedly flawed as a majority of its members had already publicly supported the morning slot, raising concerns about bias.
High Court’s Intervention and the Petition to SC
Earlier, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had directed the formation of a five-member agama panel to resolve disagreements over the consecration timing, amidst conflicting views among stakeholders and religious leaders.
While accepting the committee’s recommendation, the High Court directed that:
1. Future rituals must include the Vidhayāhar’s opinion in writing, and
2. He should distinguish clearly between a draft note and a final pattolai.
Unhappy with what he terms as a “procedurally unjust” and “religiously inconsistent” decision, Sasthrigal approached the Supreme Court, seeking urgent relief and a stay on the ceremony pending fresh evaluation.
What’s at Stake
• The core issue is ritual authority versus committee-based governance of temple practices.
• Sasthrigal argues that allowing a panel to override the traditional ritual head would set a dangerous precedent, threatening the autonomy of temple customs protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
• The State, on the other hand, argues that public institutions must have checks and balances, even in religious affairs, when multiple devotees and interpretations are involved.
Case Title R. Sivarama Subramania Sasthrigal v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others
