This religious quarrel in Tamil Nadu is not about the spiritual, but the temporal — who stands in the front rows, who chants first, whose voice fills the stone hall before the deity at dawn.
Inside the granite corridors of Sri Devarajaswamy Temple in Kanchipuram, these questions have shaped more than a century of litigation, defined ritual hierarchy and now drawn the attention of the Supreme Court, which this week appointed the former Supreme Court judge, Justice (retired) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, as a mediator to attempt an amicable settlement.
The dispute is between two sects of Sri Vaishnavas — the Thenkalai (Southern tradition) and the Vadakalai (Northern tradition). Both are from the Iyengar community. Both follow the 10th-century philosopher Ramanuja. Both worship the same deity. Yet each invokes a different spiritual lineage and seeks the right to recite its own mantras during ceremonial worship.
The conflict, as the Madras High Court recorded in November 2025, is “a sectarian dispute between two religious groups… regarding ceremonial worship” with a history stretching back “over 200 years” .
What exactly is being contested?
Not entry or belief, but ritual sequence. The issue revolves around what the court repeatedly calls Adhiapaka Mirasi — an office attached to the performance of temple services.
This office carries specific duties: Leading the recitation of the Nalayira Divya Prabandham (the 4,000 Tamil hymns), chanting an invocation mantra before the recitation, and concluding with a final verse of praise.
Members of the Thenkalai sect claim that this office — and, therefore, the right to lead these recitations — belongs exclusively to them. They assert that only their invocation, Sri Sailesa Dayapatram, praising the 15th-century philosopher Manavala Mamunigal, should be sung before the Prabandham, and only their concluding Vazhi Thirunamam should end the puja.
Story continues below this ad
The Vadakalai sect, which reveres the 14th-century philosopher Vedanta Desika, argues that it, too, must be permitted to chant its own Ramanuja Dayapatram and Desika-related verses. That difference — whose words precede and conclude worship — is the core of the case.
Why is this a court matter at all?
Because it has been one for generations. The High Court judgment in November carefully traces earlier litigation: In 1882 (Krishnasami Tatacharyar and others v. Krishnamacharyar and others), a Division Bench held that the Adhiapaka Mirasi, except for one limited function, was the exclusive right of the Thenkalai sect residing in Kanchipuram. Vadakalai members could join as ordinary worshippers but not introduce separate mantras.
In 1915, it reiterated that during puja and processions, only the Thenkalai invocation could be recited. Vadakalais could participate but not form a separate chanting group . The rulings in 1939 and 1969 again affirmed that ritual leadership and front-row goshti (congregation) positions belonged to Thenkalai Adhiapaka mirasidars (mirasi means hereditary rights, and mirasidars, in this instance, means hereditary office-holders). In short, successive court rulings treated the matter not as theology but as custom and office-based rights attached to temple service.
What has triggered the present round?
Story continues below this ad
Several petitions filed over the years have now converged. Thenkalai members sought police protection, alleging interference with their recitations. Vadakalai members challenged temple notices that restricted them from chanting their own mantras during puja. One petition sought permission to render Vedanta Desika’s prabandham (hymn) on his 750th birth anniversary. A contempt plea alleged violation of earlier decrees.
Vadakalai petitioners argued that the HC’s reliance on pre-Constitution judgments violated Article 25, which guarantees freedom of religion. They also cited the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Amendment Act, 1971, which abolished hereditary religious service, contending that earlier mirasi (hereditary) privileges could not survive.
What did the High Court say?
In its November 2025 ruling, the court acknowledged that freedom of religion is fundamental, but emphasised that Article 25 is not absolute. It is subject to public order and the rights of others.
Story continues below this ad
Where a temple’s rituals have historically been structured around specific offices, the court reasoned, simultaneous competing recitations could disrupt established ceremonial order. Thus, earlier decrees defining the role of the Adhiapaka mirasidars continued to govern practice.
What happened in the Supreme Court now?
Hearing an appeal against the High Court verdict, the Supreme Court noted that both sides were willing to explore settlement. The bench appointed Justice (retired) S K Kaul as principal mediator, allowing him to associate two experts familiar with Tamil, Sanskrit and temple ritual history.
The aim: Ensure that “day-to-day rituals can be performed in an amicable manner.”
The 200-year argument
After 200 years, the argument has remained the same. Who stands in the first rows, who begins the chant, whose lineage is named before the deity. Only the forum has changed.
Story continues below this ad
For the court, these are questions of office and precedent. For devotees, they are questions of belonging. After more than a century of decrees, injunctions, and appeals, the case has returned not to a new legal doctrine but to conversation.
What appears technical on paper becomes deeply personal on the ground. To chant first is not merely to speak — it is to be recognised as custodian of tradition. To stand in the first rows of the congregation before the deity is to inhabit history.
Justice Kaul’s mediation may attempt what courts alone have struggled to achieve: Two communities who pray to the same deity standing before it together, without contesting who speaks first.
