Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court has observed that rituals and practices performed as part of a long-standing religious tradition should not be disturbed on grounds of possible public inconvenience.

The observation came while considering the dispute relating to the performance of Udayasthamana Pooja at the iconic Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple in Kerala on Vrishchikam Ekadasi.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi noted that the Udayasthamana Pooja has been performed on Vrishchikam Ekadasi “since long.”

The Court said, “Any ritual which is being performed at any place or site of worship as part of long-standing tradition, and has assumed religious significance, ought not be unsettled on the apprehension that there would be potential public inconvenience. The faith of the worshippers at large ought not to be put aside on the anvil of managerial and administrative concerns and must be given precedence and respect as far as possible.”

The bench emphasised that the Guruvayur temple has a rich religious history and that its established customs, practices and rituals, if affected, could hurt the sentiments of devotees. “It is to be noted that the performance of the pooja by five Acharyas is conducted for enhancing the divinity of deity. On special occasions such as Vrishchikam Ekadasi, inconvenience to public cannot be a ground to discontinue or alter the rituals or pooja to be performed on the said day for deity,” the Court said.

The Court stated that, at this stage, it was not convinced by the reasons given by the respondents(temple administration) for discontinuing the ritual and declined to interfere as an interim measure.

The Court directed the Guruvayur Devaswom and the Thantri (Chief Priest) to conduct the Udayasthamana Pooja on Vrishchikam Ekadasi, which falls on December 1, 2025, in accordance with the temple's age-old customs and traditions. It also clarified that the administration and the Thantri could perform the pooja on another date, such as November 2, if they wished, in addition to the mandatory pooja on the Ekadasi day.

Background

The dispute arose from a decision by the temple administration last year, supported by the Tantri, to forego the Udayasthamana Pooja on Vrishchikam Ekadasi, citing difficulties in crowd management and a desire to allow more devotees time for darshan. The appellants, who are members of the temple's hereditary priestly family, challenged this decision, contending that it violated age-old customs and rituals.

The appellants argued before the High Court that the Udayasthamana Pooja has been conducted for centuries and was streamlined by Adi Sankaracharya himself. They emphasized that its non-performance would disturb the spiritual sanctity of the deity and offend the beliefs of devotees.

The temple administration and the Tantri, however, maintained that the Udayasthamana Pooja is not an indispensable ritual but a form of offering (Vazhipadu), which has been altered in the past to accommodate practical considerations. The administration also highlighted that the change was made in consultation with the Tantri after determining that it would not adversely affect the temple's rituals or traditions.

The Kerala High Court, while declining interference last year, referred to various judgments that held that under the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978, the Tantri has the final authority in matters of religious and ceremonial practices, unless such decisions contravene any law.

The High Court said that the question of whether the performance of Udayasthamana Pooja in Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple on Vrishchikam Ekadasi on the Shuklapaksham day is part of the temple traditions (Acharams) or an offering (Vazhipadu), is a disputed question of facts. The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the issue has to be agitated before a competent civil court, and not the High Court in writ jurisdiction.

In December 2024, the Supreme Court had issued notice on the matter, but did not issue any direction, considering that the Vrischikam Ekadasi was already over for that year.

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 29687/2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1055

Case Title – PC Hary v. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee

Click Here To Read/Download Order