Latest news with #Vidhayahar
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
25-06-2025
- General
- United News of India
SC to hear Thiruchendur temple priest's plea on July 1 over consecration timing
New Delhi, June 25 (UNI) The Supreme Court today agreed to hear on July 1 a petition filed by the Vidhayahar (chief temple priest) of the historic Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy temple in Thiruchendur, Tamil Nadu, challenging the Madras High Court's approval of the consecration (Kumbhabhishekam) ceremony timing fixed by an expert committee. The plea, filed by R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, contends that the High Court erred in allowing the ceremony to be conducted on July 7 between 6 a.m. and 6.47 a.m., as recommended by a court-appointed Agama expert committee. The petitioner asserts that the auspicious time should be 12.05 p.m. to 12.47 p.m., as fixed by him in his capacity as Vidhayahar of the temple. The matter was mentioned orally before a bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh for urgent listing. Justice Viswanathan, upon learning that the temple in question was Thiruchendur's famous Subramaniya Swamy Temple, remarked, 'It is a good temple.' During the exchange, the judge asked if the petitioner had fixed the time last year as well, to which the counsel confirmed and added that even the High Court had previously recognized the Vidhayahar's authority in such matters. However, this year, the counsel explained, the High Court had constituted a committee to determine the timing. Justice Viswanathan, after examining the High Court's order on a digital device presented by counsel, noted that the High Court had specifically directed the temple administration to follow the traditional procedure of seeking written opinions from the Vidhayahar, with clear indication of whether a Pattolai (astrological chart/timing) is a draft or final version. Despite this, the High Court, in its review judgment, upheld the expert committee's timing, which the petitioner has now challenged. The bench agreed to list the matter on July 1, but declined the petitioner's request for a hearing on June 26. The petition stems from a Madurai bench judgment delivered by Justices S Srimathy and R Vijayakumar, which refused to interfere with the timing fixed by a five-member expert committee. The committee was appointed following an earlier petition by the Vidhayahar himself, who had opposed the authorities' selection of the early morning window as 'inauspicious.' Ironically, the same Vidhayahar later questioned the very constitution of the expert committee through a review petition. The High Court, however, noted that it was compelled to form the committee only because the petitioner had issued three separate Pattolais, without clarifying whether the first two were draft versions. 'Had the Vidhayahar been careful and pointed out that the first two Pattolais were drafts and that a final version would follow after consulting the Panchangam, this confusion would not have arisen,' the division bench noted. The High Court observed that both parties had consented to the formation of the committee at that time and that the majority decision of the experts could not now be revisited merely because it was unfavourable to the petitioner. The High Court judgment emphasized that, The expert committee's recommendation for the 6:00 a.m. to 6:47 a.m. window was based on Agama principles. The formation of the committee was 'peculiar to the facts of this case' and should not be treated as a precedent. Until a civil court decides otherwise, the religious supremacy of the Vidhayahar over temple rituals must be preserved. Going forward, the temple administration must seek written opinion from the Vidhayahar on consecration timings, with a clear label indicating whether it is a draft or final Pattolai. Despite this recognition of the Vidhayahar's traditional role, the court upheld the July 7 morning ceremony timing, prompting the current appeal in the Supreme Court. UNI SNG PRS
Time of India
24-06-2025
- General
- Time of India
HC refuses to interfere with timings for Tiruchendur temple consecration
Madurai: Considering that court-appointed experts in agama principles had arrived at an opinion regarding the timings of the consecration of Subramanya Swamy Temple in Tiruchendur in Tuticorin district, which is to be held on July 7, Madras high court has observed that it was not inclined to interfere with the timings fixed by them. Earlier, public interest litigations were filed by R Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal Vidhayahar and Sri Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil Swathanthira Paribalana Sthalathargal Saba, seeking to fix the timings for the consecration of the Tiruchendur temple by following the ancient texts and literature. The court appointed a committee of experts to decide the timing. The petitioners filed review petitions seeking to review the earlier order passed by the court. A division bench of justice S Srimathy and justice R Vijayakumar observed that experts in the agama principles arrived at an opinion regarding the timings as 6am to 6.47am, and the court is not inclined to interfere with the said timings. The judges made it clear that the court was constrained to form an expert committee only because Vidhayahar of the temple gave three different Pattolais (Kumbabisheka Muhurtha Pattolais) without mentioning that the first two Pattolais are draft in nature. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo You Can Also Check: Madurai AQI | Weather in Madurai | Bank Holidays in Madurai | Public Holidays in Madurai The judges observed that considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the court upholds the formation of the expert committee and the timings fixed by them, and this should not be taken as a precedent in the 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 follow the earlier procedure of seeking opinion from the Vidhayahar through written communication alone. The Vidhayahar shall indicate whether it is a draft or final Pattolai while giving opinion and fixing the timing, the judges observed and disposed of the review petitions. In addition, a public interest litigation petition filed by A Viyanarasu of Tuticorin district sought a direction to the authorities to conduct the consecration of Tiruchendur temple by using Tamil spiritual mantras and hymns equally. A division bench of justice S M Subramaniam and justice A D Maria Clete directed the case to be posted along with other similar petitions.
The Hindu
24-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
HC refuses to interfere in Tiruchendur temple consecration timings fixed by experts in Agama principles
Taking into account that experts in Agama principles have arrived at an opinion with regard to the timings of the consecration of the Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Tiruchendur, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday observed that it was not inclined to interfere with it. A Division Bench of Justices S. Srimathy and R. Vijayakumar said considering that experts in Agama principles arrived at an opinion with regard to the timings of the consecration to be held from 6 a.m. to 6.47 a.m., on July 7, the court was not inclined to interfere in the timings. However, the court made it clear it was constrained to form an expert committee only due to the fact that the Vidhayahar of the temple had given three different Pattolais without mentioning that the first two Pattolais were draft in nature. The court upheld the formation of the expert committee and the timings fixed by them and observed that this should not be taken as a precedent in future. Till a decision is rendered by a civil court, the supremacy of the Vidhayahar in relation to religious matters of the temple has to be protected, the court observed. Therefore, the temple is directed to the earlier procedure of seeking opinion from the Vidhayahar through written communication alone and the Vidhayahar should indicate whether it is draft or final Pattolai while giving opinion and fixing the timing, the court said while disposing of review applications. Meanwhile, a Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete heard a public interest litigation petition filed by A. Viyanarasu of Thoothukudi district who sought a direction to the authorities to conduct the consecration of Tiruchendur temple by using Tamil spiritual mantras and hymns equally. The court directed the petition to be tagged along with other similar petitions.
The Hindu
05-06-2025
- General
- The Hindu
Supreme Court refuses to intervene in Madras High Court order on consecration rites in Tiruchendur temple
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 4, 2025) refused to intervene in a plea against a Madras High Court order constituting a committee to fix the schedule for Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) for Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Tiruchendur, Tamil Nadu. A Bench headed by Justice P. K. Mishra however allowed the petitioner, R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, the Vidhayahar at the temple, to file a review plea against the High Court order. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had directed the constitution of a committee of experts to decide the timing for conducting the consecration ceremony at the temple. The petitioner, in the High Court, had argued that he said he had been the Vidhayahar at the temple for the past 13 years. During temple festivals and other functions he had to fix the timings for their commencement, pujas and celebrations and point out customary and Agamic practices and principles to be adopted according to the nature of the deities and the functions, he had said in the High Court. He had argued in the High Court that the date (July 7) and the timing fixed for the ceremony were not suitable for the event. The petitioner had sought a direction to the authorities to follow the ancient texts and literature and declare the consecration ceremony.
