This is an interim order in pending special leave petitions. It decides nothing on the merits of the dispute before the Madras High Court: it issues notice, reiterates an existing stay on the impugned judgment, and fixes a timetable for counter and rejoinder affidavits. The underlying challenge remains to be heard with SLP(C) No. 39005 of 2026 and connected matters.
- Case
- Sri Sabanayagar Temple v. The Commissioner & Ors.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- Aravind Kumar; Vipul M. Pancholi
- Case numbers
- SLP(C) Nos. 39054-39055/2026; Diary No. 69511/2026
- Outcome
- Record of proceedings dated 5 November 2026 in SLP(C) Nos. 39054-39055 of 2026: notice issued; stay granted on 4 November 2026 in SLP(C) No. 39005 of 2026 reiterated; counter affidavit within six weeks and rejoinder within two weeks thereafter; matter to be listed with SLP(C) No. 39005 of 2026 and connected matters.
Stay reiterated, notice issued in two further petitions
The Supreme Court has reiterated the stay it granted on 4 November 2026 on the Madras High Court's order in the Sabanayagar Temple case, extending that protection to two further special leave petitions filed by Sri Sabanayagar Temple.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order on 5 November 2026 in SLP(C) Nos. 39054-39055 of 2026. The petitions arise from the High Court of Judicature at Madras's final judgment and order dated 30 October 2026 in WMP Nos. 33543 of 2023 and 33545 of 2023.
The Court issued notice in the two petitions. It recorded that the respondents had accepted notice and waived service upon themselves and their instrumentalities. It then said: “Having regard to the fact that this Court vide order dated 04.11.2026 passed in SLP (C) No.39005/2026 has already stayed impugned judgment, we reiterate the same.”
The petitions follow a stay granted the previous day
The two petitions were listed as Item No. 53 in Court No. 10 on 5 November 2026, under Section XII. The petitioner, Sri Sabanayagar Temple, was represented by senior counsel K. Parmeshwar, and the respondents — the Commissioner and others — by the Additional Advocate General, assisted by B. Karunakaran, Advocate-on-Record.
The order records two interlocutory applications filed with the petitions: IA No. 343852 of 2026, seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment, and IA No. 343854 of 2026, seeking exemption from filing the official translation.
The sequence matters. The day before this order, on 4 November 2026, the Court had already stayed the same impugned judgment — the Madras High Court's order of 30 October 2026 — in SLP(C) No. 39005 of 2026. The 5 November order does not grant a fresh stay; it notes the existing stay and reiterates it for these two petitions.
Whether interim protection should extend to the connected petitions
The question before the Court at this stage was a narrow, interim one: with notice being issued in SLP(C) Nos. 39054-39055 of 2026, should the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court remain stayed while the petitions are pending?
The order answers that question by reference to what had already happened. Because the impugned judgment had already been stayed on 4 November 2026 in the connected SLP(C) No. 39005 of 2026, the Court reiterated that stay rather than passing a new interim direction on fresh reasoning.
Nothing in the two-page record of proceedings records any submission on the merits of the dispute, or any finding about the correctness of the High Court's order. The order is confined to notice, the reiterated stay, and the timetable for affidavits.
BANTHRY ANALYSISWhat a stay does while a special leave petition is pending
A stay of an impugned judgment freezes its operation while the challenge is pending. It does not decide the challenge: the judgment remains under challenge, and the stay lasts only until the Court passes a further order. That is why the order's wording matters — “we reiterate the same” keeps the existing protection in place without re-deciding it.
Issuing notice is the first step after a special leave petition is filed. It tells the respondents that the Court wants to hear them before deciding whether to grant leave and, eventually, whether to allow the appeal. Here the respondents accepted notice and waived formal service, so that step was completed at the hearing itself.
Listing the petitions with SLP(C) No. 39005 of 2026 and connected matters means the Court will hear them together. Connected petitions raising the same impugned judgment are heard together so that the Court does not pass inconsistent orders on the same judgment.
The Court's stated reason: the stay already exists
The order gives one reason for reiterating the stay, and it is stated in a single sentence. The Court notes that it had, by its order dated 4 November 2026 in SLP(C) No. 39005 of 2026, already stayed the impugned judgment, and says that it reiterates the same stay in these petitions.
The Court also records that it heard senior counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Advocate General, assisted by the respondents' Advocate-on-Record, and that the respondents accepted and waived service of notice upon themselves and their instrumentalities.
No other reasoning appears in the record. The order does not summarise the parties' submissions, does not discuss the High Court's reasoning, and does not give any view on whether the impugned judgment is correct.
Counter affidavits in six weeks; petitions listed together
The operative directions in the order are fourfold. First, notice is issued in SLP(C) Nos. 39054-39055 of 2026, and service stands waived. Second, the stay granted on 4 November 2026 on the Madras High Court's judgment is reiterated. Third, any counter affidavit is to be filed within six weeks from 5 November 2026, and any rejoinder within two weeks after that. Fourth, the petitions are to be listed along with SLP(C) No. 39005 of 2026 and connected matters.
The practical effect is that the Madras High Court's order of 30 October 2026 remains inoperative while the special leave petitions are pending, and the parties now move to the affidavit stage before the next listing.
The order was digitally signed on 5 November 2026 at 17:20:38 IST. It does not fix a date for the next hearing; listing will follow with SLP(C) No. 39005 of 2026 and the connected matters.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This order is a good example of how little a record of proceedings sometimes decides. Two pages, five short paragraphs, and the only substantive direction is the reiteration of a stay granted the day before. The rest is procedure: notice, waiver of service, and an affidavit timetable.
Notice the difference between granting a stay and reiterating one. A fresh stay requires the Court to be satisfied, at least prima facie, that the impugned judgment should not operate while the challenge is heard. A reiteration, as here, rests on the earlier order: the Court is saying the protection already granted should continue to cover these connected petitions as well.
Also note what waiver of service achieves. Service of notice is normally a formality that takes time. When the respondents appear, accept notice and waive service, the case moves straight to the affidavit stage — which is why this order could fix a six-week counter-affidavit deadline on the first day itself.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- The 5 November 2026 order says the Court 'reiterates' a stay. What had the Court already done on 4 November 2026 in SLP(C) No. 39005 of 2026, and why does that matter for what the 5 November order actually decides?
- The respondents accepted and waived service of notice. What does waiver of service mean at the notice stage of a special leave petition, and what step follows it in this order?
- The order directs the matter to be listed with SLP(C) No. 39005 of 2026 and connected matters. Why would a court list connected petitions together, and what does listing together not decide about their outcome?
