Kumbabhishekam committee cannot be formed without Kattalai Thambiran’s concurrence, Madras High Court rules

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions, Puducherry constituted a Thirupani Committee on 06.06.2022 for conducting the Kumbabishegam of Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple without consulting the Kattalai Thambiran of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam.

The Kattalai Thambiran objected, relying on the decree in A.S. Nos.426 and 429 of 1999, which required consultation with him in matters concerning the administration and religious ceremonies of the Thirunallar temple.

Pursuant to directions in earlier writ proceedings, an enquiry was conducted. The Commissioner ultimately rejected the request to recall or reconstitute the committee.

The Dharumapuram Adheenam challenged that decision, asserting that Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple was a sub-temple of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam and that consultation with the Kattalai Thambiran was mandatory.

1. Whether Arulmighu Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple is a sub-temple of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam, Thirunallar.

2. Whether a Thirupani Committee for the sub-temple could be constituted without consulting the Kattalai Thambiran of the main temple.

3. Whether, in matters involving religious and spiritual functions such as Kumbabishegam, “consultation” with the Kattalai Thambiran must be understood as requiring his concurrence.

4. Whether the Commissioner could rely on his general powers under Section 3A of the Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972, to constitute the committee without following the existing decree and customary rights.

Section 30 of the Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972 preserves honours, emoluments, perquisites, customs and established usages in religious institutions and prohibits interference with religious or spiritual functions.

Section 3A confers general superintendence and control over the administration of religious institutions but does not authorise interference with religious matters.

The decree dated 03.08.2012 in A.S. Nos.426 and 429 of 1999 required consultation with the Kattalai Thambiran, in the absence of the administrative Board, regarding temple administration and periodical religious ceremonies.

The Court relied on Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 2 SCC 11, and Sri Emberumanar Jeer Swamigal v. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, AIR 1936 Mad 973, for the principle that statutory saving clauses preserve existing religious usages and rights.

It further held that the existence of disputed facts does not, by itself, bar adjudication under Article 226, particularly where official records establish the relevant facts, relying on A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 260.

The Court found that official departmental records, including the Commissioner’s 2004 memorandum, the District Collector’s order dated 30.08.2024, communications of the Executive Officer, temple invitations and staff records, consistently described Athipadugai Angalaparameswari Amman Temple as belonging to or being a sub-temple of Sri Dharbaraneshwarar Swamy Devasthanam.

Consequently, the administration of the sub-temple could not be separated from that of the main temple.

Since the decree governed the administration and religious ceremonies of the main temple, it also applied to the sub-temple. The constitution of the Thirupani Committee without consulting the Kattalai Thambiran therefore breached the decree.

The Court characterised Kumbabishegam as an essentially religious act involving rituals and auspicious timings, matters beyond the exclusive competence of departmental officials.

In light of the historical association of the Adheenam with the temple and Section 30’s protection of established usages, the Court held that the Kattalai Thambiran’s opinion was decisive in the religious and spiritual sphere.

Section 3A could not be used to override those protections, and the later Government Order dated 14.07.2023 could not retrospectively validate the committee constituted in 2022.

The impugned order of the Commissioner was set aside.

The Special Officer was directed to constitute a fresh Thirupani Committee in consultation with the Kattalai Thambiran; one committee member was to belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

The Court further directed that the Kumbabishegam be conducted as expeditiously as possible, noting that the deity had remained in Balalayam since 25.04.2025.

The writ petition was allowed without costs and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.