SC declines to intervene in spat between Thiruchendur temple Vidhayahar and State government over Kumbhabhishekam time
Disposing of the petition, a Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N. Kotiswar Singh said the court did not have the expertise to decide the 'auspicious time' for the Kumbhabhishekam.
The Vidhayahar, R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthirigal, represented by senior advocate K. Parameshwar and advocate Karthik Ashok, said he was the 'sole, exclusive, traditional and customary authority' on the rites of the temple. The State government had defied his decision to conduct the ceremony at 12.05 p.m.
'We cannot decide what is the auspicious time. We could say in future if they should consult with you, form a committee, etc… You claim your decision is binding as far as temple rites are concerned… But the binding nature of your opinion will be decided in the civil court and not in writ jurisdiction here,' Justice Misra told the counsel. Mr. Parameshwar said that, like the court, the State government too did not have a role in fixing the time for the Kumbhabhishekam.
'He is the sole and exclusive traditional and customary authority empowered to advise and fix muhurtham and timings for all religious and spiritual functions of the temple in accordance with Agamic and Vedic principles. According to the Vidhayahar, the only spiritually and astrologically appropriate timing is the Abhijit Muhurtham (12.05 p.m. to 12.45 p.m.), based on ancient texts such as Kala Prahasiha, Kala Vidhanam, and Sarva Mukurtha Chinthamani,' the petition had argued.
It submitted that the decision of the Vidyahar was not considered and the Madras High Court had gone with the timing fixed by the Expert Committee for the Kumbhabhishekam. 'The very formation of the Expert Committee is fundamentally flawed and renders the process void of neutrality. Admittedly, three out of five members of the Committee had, even prior to the proceedings, already expressed opinions suggesting a different time than the one recommended by the petitioner. This renders the composition of the Committee biased, prejudicial, and a futile exercise,' the petition had submitted.
It had contended that the government's actions were 'nothing but an unwarranted intrusion into the protected religious rights and practice and have directly undermined the Vidhayahar's traditional and legal authority'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
14 hours ago
- Hans India
LS passes Indian Ports Bill, 2025 amid unprecedented ruckus by Oppn
New Delhi: The Lok Sabha on Tuesday passed the Indian Ports Bill, 2025 by voice vote, replacing the colonial-era Indian Ports Act of 1908, even as sustained sloganeering and protests from Opposition benches drowned out much of the debate. The Bill, moved by Union Minister for Ports, Shipping and Waterways Sarbananda Sonowal, seeks to consolidate and modernise the legal framework governing India's ports, with an emphasis on cooperative federalism and strategic maritime development. The House reassembled at 3 PM with Jagdambika Pal in the chair, who invited Sonowal to move the Bill for consideration. The Minister outlined the Bill's objectives, stating that it would facilitate ease of doing business, ensure optimal utilisation of India's coastline, and empower State Maritime Boards for effective management of non-major ports. He also highlighted the Bill's provisions for managing pollution, disaster response, port safety, navigation, and data governance, while aligning domestic regulations with India's international obligations. A key feature of the legislation is the statutory establishment of the Maritime States Development Council (MSDC), which has existed since 1997 through executive notification. The Bill expands MSDC's mandate to include major ports under central control, enabling a consultative and collaborative framework between the Centre and coastal states. The minister Sonowal said the Council would advise on long-term planning, issue non-binding guidelines, and foster structured growth across the port sector. Despite the Minister's address, proceedings were repeatedly interrupted by Opposition members who stormed the Well of the House, shouting slogans such as 'We want justice.' The Chair made multiple appeals for order, assuring members that everyone would be given a chance to speak, but his voice was largely drowned in the din. Participating in the debate, BJP MP Dilip Saikia (Darrang-Udalgudi, Assam) described ports as 'engines of employment' and urged Opposition members to engage constructively. He noted that port capacity had increased by 87 per cent over the last decade under the Modi government, and said the Bill would open new gateways to Southeast Asia, enhancing regional connectivity and trade. TDP MP Sribharat Muthukumilli (Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh) also spoke in support of the Bill, emphasising its potential to strengthen coastal infrastructure and empower state-level port authorities. BJP's Darshan Singh Choudhary (Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh) echoed similar sentiments, calling the legislation a timely intervention for maritime reform. The Bill includes provisions for adjudicatory mechanisms to resolve port-related disputes and mandates conservation measures to protect port ecosystems. It also addresses emergency preparedness, security protocols, and compliance with international maritime instruments. In passing the Bill, the government signalled its intent to recalibrate Centre-State relations in port governance, especially in light of shifting political equations following the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The consultative framework embedded in the legislation is seen as a response to coalition compulsions and the need to accommodate regional aspirations, the minister said and urged the house to pass the Bill. Following the passage of the Bill by voice vote, the Chair adjourned the House till 4:30 PM.
Hindustan Times
21 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump and the art of war
President Donald Trump is practising a new art of war with trade as the weapon in his second term. US Foreign policy initiatives reflects this into a complex interplay of assertive nationalism, strategic diplomacy, and decisions supported by his base. Some actions seem aimed to strengthen US interests, while others draw significant criticism and raise questions about their long-term implications. He is making radical policy shifts executing bold ideas — such as withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, suspending foreign aid, or proposing radical solutions for Gaza and pushing territorial ambitions with regard to Canada and Greenland. Sun Tzu, Chanakya, John Boyd, Clausewitz and Machiavelli would marvel at this practice of the art of war. Donald Trump (Bloomberg) Trump views alliances and diplomacy through a business and trade lens, but now he is more overtly pursuing transactional goals, be it trade benefits, security deals, or foreign policy influence. This is nothing but a cold war in a different dimension. He has strengthened US-Saudi relations by broadening investments and trade to enhance economic cooperation; this helps influence oil prices. His strategic realignments follow a transactional approach to traditional alliances, for example, demanding that NATO to increase defence spending. His aggressive trade policy aims to protect American industries but raise concerns about potential economic repercussions. His policies also aim to realign strategic interests of so-called autonomous countries. Pakistan adeptly plays China and the US against each other—securing military aid, economic support, and diplomatic backing from both at different times. Pakistan has positioned itself as a strategic pivot, for the US (counter-terrorism) and for China for economic benefits (CPEC Corridor). Pakistan has long pursued strategic goals in India and Afghanistan using non-State actors, allowing plausible deniability while bleeding opponents indirectly. Pakistan uses its nuclear arsenal to offset India's conventional superiority, enabling the space for grey zone tactics without full-scale retaliation. Practising narrative warfare, it invests in shaping global perceptions using diplomacy, diaspora, and media to portray itself as a victim of terrorism, while distancing itself from supporting certain militant groups. India, even though viewed as a natural partner of the US, has irked Trump for being strategically autonomous. Washington wants India to be a part of his vision-which will translate into less dependence on defence and energy ties with Russia, without understanding India's short- and medium-term compulsions. US firms face regulatory friction in India due to disagreements on data, tariffs, or protectionism. Trump proclaims India's economy as dead, yet feels it enriches Russia to fight Ukraine. This is indeed a conundrum. Trump's reinstatement of the maximum pressure campaign on Iran, aims to compel Tehran to negotiate a new nuclear agreement. This policy included heightened economic sanctions and then, forgetting the 'peace feather' bombs Iran for supporting terror, looking the other way in the case of Pakistan. Trump has a calculated and strategically measured approach to diplomacy and power projection yet featuring impulsive tweets and unpredictable moves as part of his manoeuvre. Trump is more legacy-conscious and recognises the cold war in play where China is asserting itself as a hegemon. He is also intent on proving his critics wrong, making his second term a mission of redemption for the western world. He is tougher and less tolerant to opposition. Policies are rolled out faster, with a new class of policy makers who do not believe in diplomatic softening or their agenda. Trump's cabinet and advisors are more ideologically aligned, creating a tighter, less contested decision-making circle as he now dominates the Republican party completely, allowing more freedom with fewer checks. Donald Trump's tariff pressure strategy, reflects key principles primarily from both Sun Tzu and Chanakya (Kautilya). Trump's art of war is influenced by Sun Tzu in his principle—'the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting'. Trump uses tariffs as an economic weapon, avoiding direct military conflict, especially with China. His aim is to force negotiations and shift trade balances in America's favour through economic pressure, not warfare. Trump targeted sectors where the US had leverage (viz tech, agriculture) and where China was vulnerable (viz exports, supply chains) by following Sun Tzu's principle—'know the enemy and know yourself, and you need not fear the result of a hundred battles'. He understood US consumer power and tried to use it strategically. He uses surprise and disruption with sudden tariff announcements to unbalance opponents, creating unpredictability — a Sun Tzu tactic 'to gain psychological and negotiating advantage'. China first faced a minimum tariff rate of 145% and then it was dropped to 30 %, India was next in line with a first volley of 50% tariff fired at it. Trump has also selectively used Chanakya's influence in theArthashastra—'Sama, Dana, Danda, Bheda' (persuasion, gifts, punishment, division). Trump's tactics mirrored this principle: Sama - initially seeking negotiation (e.g., trade deals) along with Dana by offering incentives (e.g., better access for allies). Then shifting to Danda by imposing tariffs and economic penalties. He ultimately, moves to Bheda--dividing the allies and rivals (e.g., EU vs China and Pakistan vs India and China vs India). With Pakistan, he stopped at the first step of Sama as it became fully compliant promptly. Chanakya in his principle of strategic manipulation and deterrence advised kings to project strength and punish economically to force compliance. Trump weaponised tariffs to alter the behaviour of trading partners. Chanakya emphasised national interest over idealism. Trump too followed a blunt, transactional approach (America First), pushing US advantage above global consensus. Trump used Machiavelli making his bold, sometimes divisive in tactics echoed the Prince, valuing results over popularity and using fear as a tool of control and influence. He turns Clausewitz, which is military-oriented in his idea of 'war as continuation of politics by other means'. The US is using diversion by 'barking aloud at Russia with an eye to bite China'--a primary rival due to its economic heft that challenges the US. In combination with military expansion, also in the Indo-Pacific, China threatens US dominance in Asia. From Artificial Intelligence to quantum computing and semiconductors, the US sees China as a hegemon in the making through trade as its weapon and a tech competitor. Russia, on the other hand, is a mere disruptor—especially in Europe (Ukraine, energy blackmail, hybrid warfare). Its military threat is immediate, but long-term strategic competition is limited due to economic and demographic weaknesses. Trump's tariff strategy isn't random, it aligns with Sun Tzu's indirect warfare; Chanakya's multidimensional statecraft and Machiavellian pragmatism. His approach combines economic leverage, strategic pressure, and psychological tactics to reshape global trade relations — reflecting the timeless principles of classical strategists. In summary, Trump in his second term is a more determined, legacy-driven, and assertively nationalist leader. He is less interested in optics and more focused on shaping outcomes that reflect his definition of American strength. The real strategic competitor of the US today is China, though Russia remains a major adversary—especially in military and geopolitical terms. India is a strategic partner, but gets caught in the frictions of great power politics and domestic perceptions in the West. India's challenge is to stay autonomous, will have serious repercussions on India's economy. India is in the same position as in the past where India chose to be non-aligned. It now deserves to be a global power and to achieve it will require extremely deft handling. Economics and national security go hand in hand. India needs to refrain from rhetoric and act in the best interests of our masses, build strength first before reaching the pinnacle of power. This article is authored by Lt Gen PJS Pannu, former deputy chief, Integrated Defence Services.
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
CEA seeks to fix upper limit of spending by candidates
Announcing that it has conducted 159 elections since March 2024, the Cooperative Election Authority said that it wants the upper limit of expenditure by the contesting candidates to be fixed, among other things. Addressing the first consultative meeting with State Cooperative Election Authorities, CEA Chairperson Devendra Kumar Singh said, 'The Cooperative Election Authority has so far conducted 159 elections since March 2024 and is in the process of conducting 69 more such Cooperative Elections.' During the meeting, Singh said that the election process in Cooperative Societies need to be streamlined to foster transparency in order to make the elections in cooperative societies free and fair. 'The Chairperson, Cooperative Election Authority said that there is a need for standard manuals and codes of conduct for cooperative elections. The discussion revolved around matters relating to framing of Code of Conduct for contesting candidates and Multi-State Cooperative Society (MSCs), to fix upper limit of expenditure by the contesting candidates, publication of handbook for the Returning Officers, election of delegates from member Cooperative Societies who are members in National Cooperative Societies and other agenda received from State,' the Cooperative Ministry said in a statement. 'One of the agenda proposed by participating State Cooperative Election Authorities included introduction of Electronic Voting Machine in cooperative election,' the statement said. 'The CEA decided to hold the consultative committee meeting every three months to take forward the reform process in cooperative elections,' the statement said. The CEA was notified on March 11, 2024, by the Centre under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act of 2002. It is responsible for conducting elections of the Multi State Co-operative Society; and supervise, direct and control the matters relating to preparation of electoral rolls.
