Top Court Refuses To Interfere With High Court Order In Temple Consecration Case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea challenging the constitution of a committee by the Madras High Court to decide the schedule for Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) for Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Tamil Nadu's Thoothukudi district. 

The court, however, allowed the petitioner to file a review plea in the High Court against its order.

A bench of Justices PK Mishra and AG Masih was hearing a plea by the Vidhayahar of the temple when it passed the directives. It noted that the petitioner had already participated in the committee that, he claimed, was biased.

In his plea, the petitioner argued the High Court had failed to address the core constitutional and religious grievance that state authorities cannot override religious autonomy and temple customs, particularly when he is the only recognised figure competent to chalk out the schedule.

"The order under challenge is thus arbitrary, devoid of impartiality, and suffers from a manifest error of law," the plea said. 

Appearing for the petitioner in the top court, senior advocate K Parameshwar also said the state's interference was unwarranted.

"The prescription of a 'mahurat' is purely a religious function. It has nothing to do with regulation of the state," he said.

The lawyer said the temple in question is considered one of the six largest temples of Lord Karthikay in Tamil Nadu. 

He said the petitioner belongs to a family that was traditionally tasked to decide the schedules for religious ceremonies at the temple. The High Court's move has led the state to completely take over the temple's essential functions, he added.

"It is pertinent to note that three out of five members of the committee had, even prior to the present proceedings, gave an opinion at the instance of the Respondents/Govt authorities, suggesting a time different than what was recommended by the Petitioner, thereby making the constitution of the committee, biased, prejudicial and a futile exercise," the plea said.

Instead of adjudicating upon the matter, the High Court created a committee, failing to address the issue of constitutional religious rights of the petitioner, it added.