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