New Delhi: A fresh twist has emerged in the dispute over the date of the Udayasthamana Pooja at the Guruvayur temple, with serious allegations being raised against the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee before the Supreme Court.

Members of the Puzhakkara Chennas Mana family have alleged that a reference to the Udayasthamana Pooja being conducted on the Ekadashi day of the Vrischikam month was removed from the Panchangam published by the Guruvayur Devaswom Board. An affidavit has been filed before the Supreme Court alleging that the modification was made to influence the court's consideration of the dispute concerning the conduct of the pooja on Vrischikam Ekadashi.

The allegation relates to the 2026 Panchangam published by the Guruvayur Devaswom Board. The first edition of the Panchangam reportedly records that the Udayasthamana Pooja on Ekadashi would be held on October 22. October 22 falls in the Thulam month. However, page 65 of the same Panchangam also states that the Udayasthamana Pooja would be conducted on November 21, 2026, the Vrischikam Ekadashi.

The petitioners allege that the first Panchangam was subsequently withdrawn and a revised version was published, with the reference to the Udayasthamana Pooja on Vrischikam Ekadashi removed. P.C. Hari, one of the petitioners, has submitted copies of both the original Panchangam and the revised edition before the Supreme Court.

According to the petitioners, the change was made with the intention of weakening their case before the Supreme Court. The affidavit, filed through advocate A. Karthik, also points out that the Supreme Court had earlier directed that the details regarding poojas at the Guruvayur temple published on the Devaswom's website should not be altered. 

The petitioners have contended that, in view of the court's earlier direction, the Devaswom Managing Committee had no authority to make changes to the Panchangam concerning the temple rituals.

The affidavit further states that the Udayasthamana Pooja is not merely an offering but a ritualistic practice of the temple. The petitioners, who claim to be members of the thantri family of Puzhakkara Chennas Mana, have also stated that they have no personal differences with the present thantri. Referring to Sections 10, 34 and 35 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act and Rule 6, the petitioners have contended that the Managing Committee has no authority to alter established temple rituals and practices.