The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the Madras High Court’s order directing a five-member board to take over the administration of the Chidambaram Nataraja Temple from the Podhu Dikshitars [Sabhanayakar Temple Vs State of TN].

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul Pancholi issued notice on the appeal filed by Dikshitars challenging the High Court’s October 30 judgment.

During the hearing, the Bench asked whether there was any material to show that the Dikshitars were responsible for the alterations to the temple.

“Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, we are of the considered view, the impugned judgment deserves to be stayed. Accordingly, it stands stayed,” the Bench said.

The dispute arose from a May 2022 Tamil Nadu government order allowing devotees to have darshan from the Kanaka Sabha, a raised platform inside the temple where customary pujas are performed.

The Dikshitars, the hereditary priests who administer the temple, challenged the order before the High Court on the ground that it interfered with their right to manage its religious affairs under Article 26 of the Constitution.

A High Court Bench of Justices G Jayachandran and E Manoharan heard the challenge along with two connected petitions.

In a judgment delivered on October 30, the High Court upheld the government order, holding that allowing devotees to worship from the Kanaka Sabha would not interfere with the performance of religious ceremonies.

Pertinently, the High Court went further and also found that modern constructions had damaged parts of the temple and that its accounts and property records required scrutiny.

Therefore, it directed a five-member board to take immediate charge of the administration “till the ill is cured”.

The board would comprise two retired High Court judges, a retired IAS officer, the secretary of the Podhu Dikshitars and the State’s Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Secretary, the Court directed.

The board was also empowered to regulate darshan, oversee temple finances and recover temple properties. The High Court left daily rituals and periodic festivals to the Dikshitars.

This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for Dikshatars, argued that the High Court had gone beyond the dispute over access to the Kanaka Sabha and displaced the Dikshitars without fixing a deadline for restoring their control.

The temple relied on the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, which set aside the appointment of a government executive officer to administer the temple. Vaidyanathan argued that the earlier ruling had settled the Dikshitars’ status as a religious denomination and their right to administer the temple.

He also disputed that the claim that Dikshitars were responsible for alterations to the temple structures etc.

It was also submitted that the Dikshitars had furnished audited accounts. The State’s counsel relied on a Heritage Commission report describing alterations to the temple and submitted that the Dikshitars had filed a response to it.

Vaidyanathan told the Supreme Court that the judge who presided over the Madras High Court Bench had been involved in an earlier round of litigation over the temple.

“One thing I want to mention, very unfortunate: the learned Judge presiding over the Bench was the Law Secretary in the earlier round instructing in the matter!”

Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak argued that all three writ petitions before the Madras High Court concerned the May 2022 government order allowing devotees to enter the Kanagasabhai.

He submitted that none of the petitioners had sought a change in the temple’s management and that the High Court had relied on applications from a separate writ petition to constitute the board.

The counsel for Tamil Nadu government relied on a Heritage Commission report documenting alterations to the temple, including changes to a passage leading to the Nataraja shrine.

The State also raised concerns about the temple’s accounts and urged the Supreme Court to defer interim relief until it files its reply.

However, the Court stayed the judgment.

Senior Advocates Guru Krishnakumar, K Parameshwar, J Sai Deepak and Pinky Anand also appeared for petitioners supporting Dikshatars.

Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta and Shekhar Naphde appeared for the State and its actors.