Supreme Court stays Madras High Court order regarding administration of Chidambaram temple

On Wednesday, 4 November 2026, the Supreme Court stayed the order issued by the Madras High Court regarding the administration of Tamil Nadu's ancient Chidambaram Sabanayagar Temple. A bench comprising Justice Arvind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi has issued a notice to the Tamil Nadu state government and immediately stayed the implementation of the High Court's 30 October order.

The Madras High Court had previously issued an order for the formation of a Management Board (BoM) for the temple's administration. The High Court was of the view that the Paudha Dikshithars, a community of hereditary priests, have been mismanaging the temple since they took over its administration following a Supreme Court order in 2014. Due to these allegations of mismanagement, the High Court decided to change the administration.

The High Court had appointed retired judges V. Bharathadasan and R. Suresh Kumar as chairpersons of this Management Board. Retired IAS officer C. Rajendran was appointed as a member of this board. Additionally, the Secretary of the Paudha Dikshithar Association and the Secretary of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department were included as ex-officio members.

The High Court had assigned the important task of removing unauthorised constructions within the temple premises to this Management Board, in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission, as these constructions had damaged the temple's ancient structure. Additionally, the board was also tasked with the responsibility of recovering temple properties by removing encroachments on temple properties with the help of the district administration.

Representing the Tamil Nadu government, lawyers Shekhar Nafade and Jaideep Gupta argued in court that the temple's properties have been seriously damaged. They further stated that the Paudha Dikshithars have not presented a complete account of the temple's income over the last 12 years. Nafade argued that according to law, the deity is considered a 'juristic person' and the High Court has 'parens patriae' (as a guardian) jurisdiction to protect their interests.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court raised an important legal question as to whether the State High Court has 'parens patriae' jurisdiction only for public temples or also for places of worship of other religions? Justice Kumar has issued a notice to the state government regarding this question. On behalf of the opposition, lawyer Sai Deepak Iyer argued that the court should consider why this principle applies only to temples. Justice Kumar also instructed the lawyer not to make any sweeping statements on this matter. Jaideep Gupta stated that the main question is whether the temple is at risk or not. Nafade added that this is a prime example of how mismanagement can occur when temple administration is handed back.

According to an NDTV India report, while issuing notice to the Tamil Nadu government on the Dikshithars' appeal, the Supreme Court also asked whether there is any concrete evidence available to hold them responsible for the changes made in the temple's construction.

Chidambaram Nataraja Temple, also known as Thillai Nataraja Temple, was an ancient temple located in Tamil Nadu.