This order does not fix a calendar end date for the Board, decide any individual encroachment or title dispute, quantify lease or rental arrears, or make any individual finding of personal liability against a named Dikshitar; it also does not separately quash or uphold G.O.(Ms) No. 115 in a standalone operative sentence.
- Case
- Sri Sabanayagar Temple v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Court
- High Court of Judicature at Madras
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026:MHC:4389
- Bench
- G. Jayachandran; E. Manoharan
- Judgment by
- G. Jayachandran and E. Manoharan, JJ.
- Case numbers
- W.P. No. 36022 of 2023; W.P. No. 20467 of 2023; W.P. No. 30365 of 2023
- Outcome
- Common order disposing of W.P. Nos. 36022, 20467 and 30365 of 2023 and closing the connected miscellaneous petitions, constituting a Board of Management to take charge forthwith. No order as to costs.
Board takes over temple administration
The Madras High Court has placed the administration of the Sri Sabanayagar (Nataraja) Temple at Chidambaram under a Board of Management headed by two retired judges, holding that maladministration warranted intervention until the problems are cured.
A Division Bench of Dr Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice E. Manoharan disposed of three writ petitions and the connected miscellaneous petitions on 30 October 2026, after reserving orders on 12 October 2026. The Board is to take charge forthwith, with the Revenue and Public Works Departments directed to assist it. The Court's answers were: the 2022 access order was not a colourable exercise of executive power, the heritage structure was damaged under the Podhu Dikshitars' management, and the temple's properties were not properly accounted for or audited.
A 2022 order on climbing the Kanagasabai
The dispute centres on the Kanagasabai, the golden-roofed hall under which Lord Nataraja and his consort Sivagami Ammal are seated. The petitions challenged G.O.(Ms) No. 115 of the Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 17 May 2022, permitting devotees to climb atop the Kanakasabhai Mandapam and worship as per ancient custom and practice, following a 20 April 2022 order in W.P. No. 9447 of 2022 that had left the access decision to the respondents amid COVID-19.
The petitioners, including the temple represented by the Secretary of the Podhu Dikshitars, sought certiorari to quash the order as illegal and unconstitutional; one petitioner sought a declaration that it was non-est and ultra vires Articles 25 and 26 and Section 107 of the 1959 Act. They argued the Government had no authority under the Act to issue an executive order touching the manner of worship, and that the order was an indirect takeover attempt. The State replied that during the pandemic the general public were kept off the Kanagasabai while affluent devotees climbed for darshan at all times, with no account of darshan donations and no transparency in choosing who could climb.
Three issues the Court framed
The Court framed three issues across the writ petitions and the tagged miscellaneous petitions, including those from the suo motu proceedings begun in 2015 over heritage preservation: whether G.O.(Ms) No. 115 was a colourable exercise of executive power overriding the Podhu Dikshitars' denominational rights; whether the heritage structure was damaged under their management under the guise of renovation; and whether the temple's properties were properly accounted for and audited.
During the proceedings the Court directed the Podhu Dikshitars to produce a scheme for darshan timings and method for common devotees climbing the Kanagasabai. That direction, issued on 7 November 2024, was not complied with despite adjournments; an affidavit of 20 February 2025 eventually proposed regulation of climbing devotees.
BANTHRY ANALYSISArticle 26 rights are not a licence to maladminister
The Court's reasoning starts from the limits built into the rights themselves. The Podhu Dikshitars' autonomy to perform religious ceremonies inside the temple, it held, would in no way be offended by the 2022 order, issued in the context of darshan procedure at the Kanagasabai even after pandemic restrictions. Article 26 rights are subject to public peace and citizens' right to profess and practise religion, and managing religious affairs is likewise subject to public order, morality and health.
On denomination status, a denomination should have established and maintained the institution, but no one's case was that this temple was established by the Podhu Dikshitars, only administered by Smartha Brahmins called Dikshitars residing at Chidambaram, so they satisfied only one of the two conditions. The decisive proposition, from the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, is that no judgment endorsed a right to violate others' fundamental rights under the guise of denominational character, or to maladminister; the State's right to interfere on maladministration was explicitly protected there. The 2014 decision itself had not gone into the mismanagement allegations; this order now answers those issues.
Heritage damage, unaccounted property, and darshan
On heritage, the Court relied on the Heritage Commission's inspection on 11 August 2026, which listed 43 constructions and alterations made without structural impact assessment, including new construction between ancient stone pillars, paint over inscriptions and stone surfaces, and mural photographs fixed over original ceiling paintings. The Podhu Dikshitars admitted inappropriate constructions damaging the heritage structure, while objecting that HR & CE Department involvement would overreach the 2014 judgment.
On property and accounts, the Court recorded that the temple owned about 1,000 acres and movables worth several crores, but registers were not maintained or updated, and the Special Tahsildar and the Podhu Dikshitars had each failed in their duties. Some 213.65 acres had recently been identified and recovered, lands were leased to 1,221 lessees, and five temple properties had been sold in 1974, 1985 and 1988. Sealed-cover accounts for 2018 to 2020 turned out to be unaudited day-book ledgers, not professionally audited accounts.
On darshan, the Court found the claim that no devotee was allowed on the Kanagasabai at Kaala Pooja time incorrect on the Annexure-I photographs, which showed token-holders climbing on payment of money, with no account or control over the fees. It recorded Kaala Pooja timings as unrealistic and excessive, and noted that non-discriminatory, transparent darshan remained inconclusive and that no genuine steps had been taken to retrieve properties or augment income.
The Board, its members, and its mandate
To rectify what it called the malady in the temple's administration, the Court constituted a Board of Management of domain experts to take over administration till the ill is cured: retired judge V. Bharathidasan as chairman, retired judge R. Suresh Kumar as co-chairman, and retired IAS officer C. Rajendran as member, with the Secretary of the Podhu Dikshitars and the HR and CE Department Secretary as ex-officio members.
The Board must, with the Podhu Dikshitars, ensure fair and equal public darshan at the Kanagasabai by climbing atop, without violating customary practices; remove, with the Heritage Commission, unauthorised constructions damaging the ancient structure; retrieve encroached properties with district assistance, including eviction, restoration of possession and recovery of arrears; augment income and maintain proper accounts; renovate with experts, including consecration, without altering the heritage structure; and inventory movables and valuables. The chairman, co-chairman and member (other than ex-officio members) receive Rs. 2,00,000 per month with a car, driver and round-the-clock Inspector-rank security; expenses come from the HR and CE fund, with Rs. 10,00,000 vested for contingencies; donations must come through a single-window e-payment into the Board's account.
BANTHRY ANALYSISWhat stays with the Dikshitars, and what this order does not decide
For law students, the key limit is that the takeover is administrative, not religious. Daily rituals and periodical festivals remain the exclusive prerogative of the Podhu Dikshitars, and investments so far handled by them continue with them, subject only to accounts being submitted to the Board by the 5th of every English calendar month. The Board has no calendar end date: it lasts till the ill is cured, restating the 2014 position that interference is permissible only on maladministration and only until the evil is remedied, since perpetual supervision would violate Article 26(d).
The order also leaves individual disputes where they are: no finding of personal liability against any named Dikshitar, no quantified arrears, and no decision of any individual encroachment or title dispute, all assigned to the Board. Nor does it separately quash or uphold G.O.(Ms) No. 115 in a standalone operative sentence: issue (a) is answered no, and the petitions are disposed of with the Board directions, the Board to take charge forthwith.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Court hold that G.O.(Ms) No. 115 did not infringe the Podhu Dikshitars' Article 26 rights, and what limit on those rights did it rely on?
- On what two findings did the Court justify constituting a Board of Management, and why did it say the Board's tenure has no fixed end date?
- Which functions remain exclusively with the Podhu Dikshitars after this order, and which administrative functions pass to the Board?
