Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere In Temple Ritual Timing Dispute, Says Vidhayahar's Role Subject To Customary Practice

The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice NK Singh disposed of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the temple's Vidhayahar, who claimed exclusive authority over determining ritual timings as per age-old practice.

The petitioner, the designated Vidhayahar of the temple, had approached the High Court earlier seeking to mandate the timing for the upcoming religious ceremony solely based on his own determination.

However, in light of conflicting views and confusion regarding the auspicious time, the High Court, exercising its discretion, appointed an expert committee comprising five priests, including the petitioner himself, to recommend a consensus-based schedule.

The formation of this committee was initially challenged before the Supreme Court, which at that stage had allowed the petitioner the liberty to seek a review before the High Court.

Subsequently, the High Court entertained the review and passed a second order, reiterating the committee’s role in resolving the timing dispute.

Before the Supreme Court, the Vidhayahar contended that as per temple customs, his decision on ritual timings is final and not subject to committee consensus. He further argued that any confusion regarding the timings had been clarified after a later-published astrological calendar, following which he issued a fresh opinion.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents pointed out that there was evident disagreement and ambiguity regarding the timings, including variations in the petitioner’s earlier opinions. They submitted that the High Court had rightly constituted the committee in the temple's best interest to remove any doubt, with the final recommendation being supported by a 4:1 majority among the committee members.

The Court, after hearing both sides, held that the nature of the dispute and the High Court's approach did not warrant its intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution.

It noted that the High Court had carefully balanced customary practice and procedural fairness by directing that in the future, temples shall seek the Vidhayahar’s written opinion regarding ritual timings, clearly indicating whether it is a draft or final recommendation.

“Having regard to the nature of the cause espoused in the writ petition filed before the High Court, we are of the view that the orders impugned do not call for any interference,” the Court stated, emphasizing that the issue of rights would be adjudicated in the pending civil suit.

With this, the Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition along with all pending applications.