Latest news with #AbhijitMuhurtham
The Hindu
01-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
SC declines to intervene in spat between Thiruchendur temple Vidhayahar and State government over Kumbhabhishekam time
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in an appeal filed by the Vidhayahar of the famed Thiruchendur Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple alleging that Tamil Nadu Government authorities intervened and 'unilaterally' fixed the Kumbhabhishekam for 6 a.m. on July 7. Disposing of the petition, a Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N. Kotiswar Singh said the court did not have the expertise to decide the 'auspicious time' for the Kumbhabhishekam. The Vidhayahar, R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthirigal, represented by senior advocate K. Parameshwar and advocate Karthik Ashok, said he was the 'sole, exclusive, traditional and customary authority' on the rites of the temple. The State government had defied his decision to conduct the ceremony at 12.05 p.m. 'We cannot decide what is the auspicious time. We could say in future if they should consult with you, form a committee, etc… You claim your decision is binding as far as temple rites are concerned… But the binding nature of your opinion will be decided in the civil court and not in writ jurisdiction here,' Justice Misra told the counsel. Mr. Parameshwar said that, like the court, the State government too did not have a role in fixing the time for the Kumbhabhishekam. 'He is the sole and exclusive traditional and customary authority empowered to advise and fix muhurtham and timings for all religious and spiritual functions of the temple in accordance with Agamic and Vedic principles. According to the Vidhayahar, the only spiritually and astrologically appropriate timing is the Abhijit Muhurtham (12.05 p.m. to 12.45 p.m.), based on ancient texts such as Kala Prahasiha, Kala Vidhanam, and Sarva Mukurtha Chinthamani,' the petition had argued. It submitted that the decision of the Vidyahar was not considered and the Madras High Court had gone with the timing fixed by the Expert Committee for the Kumbhabhishekam. 'The very formation of the Expert Committee is fundamentally flawed and renders the process void of neutrality. Admittedly, three out of five members of the Committee had, even prior to the proceedings, already expressed opinions suggesting a different time than the one recommended by the petitioner. This renders the composition of the Committee biased, prejudicial, and a futile exercise,' the petition had submitted. It had contended that the government's actions were 'nothing but an unwarranted intrusion into the protected religious rights and practice and have directly undermined the Vidhayahar's traditional and legal authority'.
United News of India
04-06-2025
- General
- United News of India
SC refuses to intervene in Tiruchendur Temple Kumbhabhishekam schedule dispute
New Delhi, June 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to interfere with a plea challenging the constitution of a committee by the Madras High Court to decide the date and timing for the Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) of the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur. However, the apex court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court with a review petition. A vacation bench comprising Justice P.K. Mishra and Justice A.G. Masih was hearing the plea filed by R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, the Vidhayahar of the Tiruchendur temple. The petitioner contended that the High Court's decision to form a five-member committee was arbitrary, biased, and violative of the temple's traditional religious autonomy. According to the petitioner, three out of the five committee members had already expressed opinions on the muhurat (auspicious time) for the ceremony prior to the constitution of the committee at the instance of the state authorities, making the process 'prejudicial and futile.' "The prescription of a muhurat is purely a religious function; it has nothing to do with regulation by the state," argued Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar for the petitioner. "This amounts to a complete state takeover of our essential religious functions. The committee's constitution is itself flawed." The petitioner also argued that of the five committee members, three have no traditional or historical connection to the Tiruchendur temple and belong to different sampradayas (religious denominations). He submitted that this composition disregards temple-specific traditions and Agamic customs. The petitioner approached the Madras High Court earlier, challenging the state government's unilateral decision to fix the Kumbhabhishekam timing as July 7, 2025, between 6:00 AM – 7:00 AM, allegedly without consulting the temple's Vidhayahar. The petitioner claimed the astrologically appropriate timing was the Abhijit Muhurtham (12:05 PM – 12:45 PM) based on ancient scriptures such as Kala Prahasiha and Sarva Muhurtha Chintamani. Instead of adjudicating on the muhurat directly, the High Court constituted a five-member committee including the Vidhayahar (petitioner), Sivasri K. Pitchai Gurukkal (Chief Priest, Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Temple, Pillaiyarpatti), K. Subramaniaru (Thanthri, Sree Subramaniaswamy Temple, Tiruchendur, Sivasri S.K. Raja Pattar @ Chandrasekar Pattar (Sthanikar, Arulmigu Subramaniyaswamy Thirukoil, Thiruparankundram) and Melsanthi, Iyyappan Temple, Sabarimala, Kerala. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the constitution of this committee was devoid of neutrality and ignored the unique traditions of the Tiruchendur temple. Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar argued, 'This is one of the largest temples of Lord Karthikeya. Deciding the muhurat is a religious act, not a state function. This committee was flawed from inception.' Justice P.K. Mishra said, 'The committee says you consented. Then why did you agree? Perhaps form another committee?' Parameshwar said, 'Three members are from different sampradayas. This is an essential religious practice and not subject to judicial review.' The apex court said, 'We are not interfering. But when you agreed to the High Court's formation of a committee, how can you challenge it now?' Parameshwar argued, 'The state has no role here. My family has been performing this function for generations.' The bench declined to pass any direction interfering with the High Court's order, citing that the petitioner had already participated in the committee meetings and a report was prepared. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the Madras High Court, noting that the petitioner can approach the Supreme Court again if necessary. 'Considering the petitioner's submission that the formation of the committee is itself flawed, we permit the petitioner to prefer a review petition. Respondents submit that the petitioner has already participated in the meetings of the committee and a report has been submitted. Be that as it may, the petitioner, if they so wish, may approach the High Court with a review petition, with liberty to approach this Court again,' the SC said. UNI SNG SSP
New Indian Express
22-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Madras HC forms panel to decide time for Tiruchendur temple consecration
MADURAI: After objections were raised over the date and time fixed for the consecration of Tiruchendur Subramaniya Swamy temple, the vacation bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on Wednesday appointed a five-member committee to take a fresh decision on the matter. A bench of justices S Srimathy and R Vijayakumar gave the direction while disposing of a batch of petitions filed claiming that the date and time (9 am to 10.30 am on July 7) allegedly chosen by the authorities was 'inauspicious'. They requested the court to direct the authorities to conduct the ceremony at 'Abhijith muhurtham' (between 12.05 pm and 12.45 pm) on the above date. The five-member committee includes one of the petitioners, Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, as well as Sabarimala Ayyappan Melsanthi (chief priest) and Pillaiyarpatti Pitchai Gurukkal. The committee could have a discussion and the majority decision could be finalised, the judges added. Subramaniya Sasthrigal said in his petition that he was responsible for fixing timings for poojas, festivals and all other events taking place in the Tiruchendur temple for the past 13 years. However, without consulting him, the temple authorities had chosen the date and time for the consecration, which is highly inauspicious and against the Agamas. Claiming that the ceremony is believed to be crucial for the welfare of the country, state and leaders and choosing an inauspicious time would have negative ramifications, he suggested the authorities change at least the timing to 'Abhijit Muhurtham'.
