SC stays Madras HC order on Chidambaram temple

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 4, 2026) questioned whether State High Courts have parens patriae (guardian) jurisdiction only over public temples and not places of worship of other faiths while staying a Madras High Court order that constituted a Board of Management to administer the ancient Chidambaram Sabanayagar Temple in Tamil Nadu back to glory.

A Bench of Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu and froze the implementation of the October 30 High Court order, which said the Podhu Dikshidar (a hereditary community of priests) had maladministered the temple ever since its running was handed over to them following orders passed by the Supreme Court in 2014.

The High Court had appointed retired judges V. Bharathidasan and R. Suresh Kumar to chair the Board of Management (BoM). Retired IAS officer C. Rajendran was designated its member, and the secretary of the Podhu Dikshidar’s association and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department secretary would be the ex-officio members.

The BoM, in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission, was ordered to undertake the removal of unauthorised constructions put up on the temple premises that caused damage to the ancient structure. The High Court Bench had tasked the BoM to take steps to retrieve the temple properties under encroachment with the help of the district administration.

Appearing for Tamil Nadu government, senior advocates Shekhar Naphade and Jaideep Gupta submitted that there was severe damage caused to the property and the Podhu Dikshidars had not shared the full accounts of the income derived from the temple in the last 12 years.

Mr. Naphade said the High Court had parens patriae jurisdiction over public temples to protect the interest of the presiding deity, considered as juristic person by law.

“Is this parens patriae only for temples or other places of worship?” Justice Kumar asked the State government.

Mr. Naphade responded that the law only recognised parens patriae jurisdiction for public temples, not churches or other places of worship of faiths.

Senior advocate Sai Deepak Iyer, for the opposite side, submitted that the court should look into why parens patriae doctrine applied to temples alone.

“Please, do not make any sweeping statements,” Justice Kumar said.

Mr. Gupta said the primary question was whether the temple was in danger or not. Mr. Naphade said, “This is a prime instance of what maladministration would happen on returning a temple”.