The judgment established that the location of the yagasala outside the temple was permissible based on the authority of Vamadeva Paddhati, and that the practice of locating the yagasala inside the temple was not an essential religious practice and could be altered if it had the sanction of ancient religious texts.

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

A devotee of Lord Subramanya of Thiruchendur filed a writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to forbear the Board of Trustees of Tiruchendur temple from constructing, on the occasion of the kumbabhishekam of the temple, the yagasala for the uthsavamurthy Shanmugar, outside the compound wall of the temple, contending that it was opposed to the mandate of Agama Sastras. Finding that there are conflicting views on the issue among scholars, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that it is beyond the realm of this Court to resolve the issue. Aggrieved, the devotee is on appeal.

2. We have heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent, Mr.Srinivasaragavan, learned counsel for the temple and Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 3 to 7, who are the Board of Trustees of the temple.

3. Thiruchendur is one of the six major celebrated abodes (Arupadai Veedu) of Lord Muruga, located near Veera Mahendragiri hills, on the shore of the Gulf of Mannar. The waves of the Gulf of Mannar splashing at the eastern perimeter wall of the temple, present a spiritually scintillating view, giving Thiruchendur another name "Thirucheeralaivai". Historians place the date of establishment of the temple to the Sangam period of Tamil literature.

4. Sri Adi Sankara, the propounder of "Advaita" system of philosophy, is stated to have visited this temple and composed hymns known as "Subramanya Bhujangam", in praise of the Lord. Since there are references to the visit of Sri Adi Sankara to Thiruchendur temple, the temple must be at least more than 1300 years old (even if Adi Sankara belonged only to the 8th century), though there are references to its existence for about 2000 years. It is the case of the appellant that ever since the construction of the temple, the consecration ceremony (Kumbabhishekam) had been performed innumerable times (almost once in 12 years) and that at all times, the yagasala was always located inside the temple. But this time, the respondents decided to perform Kumbabhishekam on 2.7.2009 and made preparations for locating the yagasala for the utsavamurthy, outside the precincts of the temple. The appellant objected to the same on the ground that it is violative of Agama Sastras, but the respondents overruled the objections on the ground that they needed a bigger place for locating

49 homa kundas (pits where sacrificial fire is to be developed for the performance of religious oblations) in the yagasala and to facilitate easy access to devotees, lakhs of whom are expected to throng the temple for the occasion.

6. It is admitted by both sides that in the past, the yagasala was always located within the precincts of the temple. Therefore, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the appellant primarily raised two contentions namely, (a) that the rituals in temples, especially those of Saivaite sect are governed by the prescriptions in Agamas, which mandate the construction of yagasala within the temple precincts and (b) that a religious custom or practice, followed for several centuries, cannot be tampered with by the administration, merely on the ground of convenience, since such customs and practices have a Constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26.

7. In response to the first contention, Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 7, contended that the Agamas do not contain an express prohibition for the construction of the yagasala outside the compound wall of the temple. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon certain passages from "Vamadeva Paddhathi", in support of the said submission. With regard to the second contention, the learned Senior Counsel contended that a custom or practice, can always be changed in tune with the necessities of time and that what is done in the best interest of the worshippers cannot be