Thousands march in Kolhapur demanding elephant Mahadevi's return to Nandani Jain mutt
Taking cognisance of the padyatra, chief minister Devendra Fadnavis declared in Amravati that the stakeholders would be called for discussion on Tuesday. Addressing the media, Fadnavis said, "The devotees of Nandani mutt are angry, and they want the elephant's presence in the mutt or nearby. I have spoken to MP and MLAs and decided to call a meeting on Tuesday. We will try to find a legal way out. The decision to transfer the elephant to the facility was taken by the Supreme Court.
State govt didn't play any role in this."
Former MP Raju Shetti led the march from Nandani, and the march reached Kolhapur in the evening. The participants made full-size cardboard and statues of elephants with which they were walking. "We want the case to be filed against the officials of various departments that gave wrong reports that led to Mahadevi's transfer. We will continue our protest till we get Mahadevi back.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
15 Most Beautiful Female Athletes in the World
WomenSportOnline.com
Click Here
Undo
Also, some decisions should be taken so that no one dares to take away the elephants from other religious places," Shetti said.
Meanwhile, Vantara, the top officials of which recently visited Kolhapur and met the mutt's seer, issued a public statement on Saturday on its social media handle stating that a direct dialogue has been opened with Jain mutt and the swami of the mutt. "Together, we are exploring, through legal and veterinary guidance, all possibilities for Madhuri's (Mahadevi's) future, including a peaceful resolution that prioritises both her well-being and the feelings of the community," the statement read.
Hatakangangle's Shiv Sena MP Dhairyasheel Mane said there is a possibility that a high-powered committee will be set up to make legal suggestions to get Mahadevi back. He said that already the legal experts from Vantara, Peta, and Nandani's mutt are discussing the legal aspect since there is a Supreme Court order. A process to file a review petition in the SC needs to be started.
"To find a middle ground, the discussions are on whether Vantara can set up a similar enclosure at Nandani, where Mahadevi and elephants from nearby can be kept, and the facilities provided in Vantara can be made available in this enclosure. We need to ensure the balance between the care of the animal and the tradition observed for centuries. Feelings of the devotees should not be hurt," said Mane.
Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with
Friendship Day wishes
,
messages
and
quotes
!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
a minute ago
- Indian Express
Brazil's Supreme Court orders house arrest for former President Bolsonaro, a Trump ally
Brazil's Supreme Court on Monday ordered the house arrest for former President Jair Bolsonaro, on trial for allegedly masterminding a coup plot to remain in office despite his defeat in the 2022 election — a case that has gripped the South American country as it faces a trade war with the Trump administration. Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the case against Bolsonaro before the top court, said in his decision that the 70-year-old former president had violated precautionary measures imposed on him by posting content on the social media channels of his three lawmaker sons. The trial of the far-right leader is receiving renewed attention after U.S. President Donald Trump directly tied a 50% tariff on imported Brazilian goods to his ally's judicial situation. Trump has called the proceedings a ' witch hunt,' triggering nationalist reactions from leaders of all branches of power in Brazil, including President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Brazil's prosecutors accuse Bolsonaro of heading a criminal organization that plotted to overturn the election, including plans to kill Lula and Justice de Moraes after the far-right leader narrowly lost his reelection bid in 2022. Monday's order followed one from the top court last month that ordered Bolsonaro to wear an electronic ankle monitor and imposed a curfew on his activities while the proceedings are underway. Following news of the arrest order, a staffer with Brazil's federal police told The Associated Press that federal agents had seized cell phones at Bolsonaro's residence in the capital of Brasilia, as ordered by de Moraes in his decision. The staffer spoke on condition of anonymity due to their lack of authorization to speak about the matter publicly. Bolsonaro is expected to remain in Brasilia for his house arrest as he is not allowed to travel. He also has a house in Rio de Janeiro, where he held his electoral base as a lawmaker for three decades. The former army captain is the fourth former president of Brazil to be arrested since the end of the country's military rule from 1964 to 1985, which Bolsonaro supported. The move from the Brazilian justice comes a day after tens of thousands of Bolsonaro supporters took the streets in the cities of Sao Paulo and Rio, pleading for Brazil's congress to pardon him and hundreds of others who are either under trial or jailed for their roles in the destruction of government buildings in Brasilia on Jan. 8, 2023. On Sunday, Bolsonaro addressed supporters in Rio through the phone of one of his sons, which de Moraes' described as illegal. 'The flagrant disrespect to the precautionary measures was so obvious that the defendant's son, Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, decided to remove the posting in his Instagram profile, with the objective of hiding the legal transgression,' de Moraes wrote. Lawyers for the former Brazilian president did not make comments after the decision. Flávio Bolsonaro claimed on X that Brazil 'is officially in a dictatorship' after his father's house arrest. 'The persecution of de Moraes against Bolsonaro has no limits!' the senator wrote. De Moraes added in his ruling that Jair Bolsonaro, who governed Brazil between 2019 and 2022, has spread messages with 'a clear content of encouragement and instigation to attacks against the Supreme Court and a blatant support for foreign intervention in the Brazilian Judiciary' — likely a veiled reference to Trump's support for Bolsonaro. De Moraes also said that Bolsonaro 'addressed protesters gathered in Copacabana, in Rio' on Sunday so his supporters could 'try to coerce the Supreme Court.' Last week, the U.S. Treasury Department announced sanctions on de Moraes over alleged suppression of freedom of expression and the ongoing trial of Bolsonaro. Creomar de Souza, a political analyst of Dharma Political Risk and Strategy, a political consultancy firm based in Brasilia, said Bolsonaro's house arrest opens a new moment for the country's opposition, which will could gather steam in fighting against Lula's reelection bid next year. Now, de Souza said, 'the 2026 election looks like turmoil' and the political debate in Brazil will likely be split between two key struggles. 'One is the effort of Bolsonaro supporters to keep strong on the right, no matter if it is pushing for amnesty in congress or putting themselves physically out there,' the analyst said. 'The second is how the Lula administration will try to show that the country has a government.' 'This is just the start,' he concluded. The latest decision from the top court keeps Bolsonaro under ankle monitoring, allows only family members and lawyers to visit him and seizes all mobile phones from his home. Lula was imprisoned for 580 days between 2018 and 2019 in a corruption conviction that was later tossed out by the Supreme Court, citing the bias of the judge in the case. Michel Temer, who became president after Dilma Rousseff was impeached in 2016, was arrested for 10 days in 2019 in connection with a graft investigation, which later ended without a conviction. Earlier this year, de Moraes ordered the detention of President Fernando Collor, who was in office from 1990 to 1992 until he was impeached. The 75-year-old former president was convicted for money laundering and corruption in 2023 and is now serving his more than eight-year sentence.
Hindustan Times
a minute ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi court disposes of PWD irregularities case against Satyendar Jain
A Delhi court on Monday disposed of a corruption case against former Public Works Department (PWD) minister Satyendar Jain, of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), alleging irregularities in hiring a creative team for PWD's infrastructure projects in 2016 and causing a loss to the public exchequer. Satyendar Jain is also facing an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) probe over an alleged ₹ 7 crore bribe from a company tasked with installing CCTV cameras in Delhi. Special judge Dig Vinay Singh, accepting the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI's) closure report filed in 2022, said, 'When CBI could not find any evidence of criminal conspiracy, abuse of power, pecuniary gain, or wrongful loss to the government exchequer, and the alleged acts are at most administrative irregularities, no offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act or criminal conspiracy is established.' The court noted that despite several years of investigation carried out by the probe agency, no incriminating evidence has been found. 'Not every decision made in an official capacity that does not strictly follow rule warrants invoking the POC (Prevention of Corruption) Act,' the court said. CBI had filed the case against Jain in May 2018, based on a reference from Delhi lieutenant governor, to investigate allegations of irregularities in awarding a tender to a private firm for PWD's infrastructure projects. Senior officials of PWD, including its engineer-in-chief, were also named as accused. According to the FIR, Jain and other PWD officials were accused of irregularities in hiring a 'creative team' of consultants, in breach of recruitment and financial regulations. They were also accused of outsourcing professionals for PWD projects without the finance department's approval. To be sure, Jain is facing two other cases, one pertaining a disproportionate assets case, in which he is accused of amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, up to approximately ₹1.62 crore between 2015 and 2017. Jain was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in the case in 2022 and granted bail in 2024. Jain is also facing an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) probe over an alleged ₹7 crore bribe from a company tasked with installing CCTV cameras in Delhi. Both cases are at the Rouse Avenue Court and charges have not been framed in either. Following the verdict, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal posted on X in Hindi: 'All the cases filed against 'you' leaders are false. With time, the truth will come out in all cases. We were sent to jail by filing false cases against us. Shouldn't all those who filed these false cases and the leaders at whose behest these false cases were filed be sent to jail?Whenever they wanted... they sent us to jail, and whenever they felt like it, they filed a 'closure report'? Is this justice?' The BJP did not respond to requests for comment on the matter. In its closure report in the PWD case, the CBI said that it found no criminality or evidence of personal gain, bribery or any criminal intent or violation of financial rules. On the hiring process, the CBI concluded that there was no irregularity in the selection process and the same was based on merit and qualification. Meanwhile, on the financial aspect, the agency found no irregularity of illicit gain to any of the accused, stating that the expenditure for the project was well within the threshold delegated to the PWD, and there was no mandatory requirement to consult the finance department. 'The hiring of professionals was necessary due to urgent departmental needs. A transparent recruitment process was followed through a competitive method, and no payments were made beyond prescribed norms and approved limits. Emoluments were neither excessive nor irregular,' the CBI said. A protest petition was moved by the Directorate of Vigilance of the Delhi government in 2022, challenging the report's findings, alleging that the CBI carried out a 'biased' probe, ignoring documentary evidence and relying solely on witness statements. Rejecting the protest plea, the court on Monday stated that the law clearly stated that suspicion cannot replace proof and even to charge someone, a strong suspicion was needed to proceed. 'The precedents relied upon by the complainant are distinguishable on the facts and do not help in the facts of the present case,' the court said.
Hindustan Times
a minute ago
- Hindustan Times
SC questions UP govt on Bankey Bihari temple ordinance
The Supreme Court on Monday told the Uttar Pradesh government that it acted in a 'clandestine' manner and with 'tearing hurry' in bringing an ordinance to take over Mathura's Bankey Bihari temple. SC questions UP govt on Bankey Bihari ordinance The court proposed having an interim administrative committee headed by a former high court judge to manage the day-to-day affairs of the temple and propose steps for its holistic development aimed at promoting religious tourism and granted a day's time for the state and the temple management to respond with suggestions. On May 26, the UP government brought an ordinance titled 'Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025' which allowed administrative takeover of the temple by a state-run trust that was given power to manage even the temple funds. The ordinance came after a May 15 judgment of the top court allowing the UP government to utilise temple funds to acquire 5 acres of land for a corridor development project around the premises. The ordinance has since been challenged before the Allahabad high court. The top court on Monday heard a petition filed by the Management Committee Of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple challenging the ordinance and the May 15 judgment that was passed without hearing the Shebaits or the Bankey Bihari temple committee. A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said, 'What was the tearing hurry for bringing the ordinance? If the state wanted to carry out development, what stops you from getting the land as per law.' The temple committee represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan and advocate Tanvi Dubey pointed out that Bankey Bihari Mandir is a private temple and is being administered as per a 1939 court decree by the Sewayat Goswami community for over 500 years. Divan said that prior to the ordinance, the temple used to be managed by a committee having four members of the Goswami community and three non-Goswami individuals. A public interest litigation for better management of the temple is pending before the Allahabad high court since 2022 and despite the temple committee being very much an active stakeholder, there was no public notice by the state about the bringing of an ordinance and no circumstance necessitated its promulgation. Additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj appearing for the state said that the land on which the temple is situated is public land and the law does not recognise any management committee of the temple. By bringing the ordinance, he said the state aimed for the development of the temple and ensuring that funds are utilised for the betterment of pilgrims. He further pointed out that in the past there were incidents of stampede and to ensure there is more space for pilgrims, the state had benefited from the May 15 order to develop the corridor around the temple. The bench said, 'Whether it is private land or not can be adjudicated by courts. You were required to issue a public notice as you were aware about the pending litigation by warring groups. But we are sorry to say, the state coming to court in a clandestine manner and not giving them an opportunity to be heard, we do not expect this from the state.' The court said it was inclined to recall the May 15 order and suggest a retired high court judge or even a senior retired district court judge to head the interim management committee for running the day-to-day affairs of the temple. The court proposed that the committee may be allowed to utilise part of the temple funds for this purpose as it said, 'Temple funds should be utilised for the benefit of pilgrims coming to the temple and not to be pocketed by private persons.' Divan said that the temple committee will not stand in the way of the court's order as what is proposed is an interim arrangement instead of the state trust under the ordinance which completely divests the Goswami community of the temple management and places it in the hands of state officials. The court told the ASG that even without acquiring the land, the state is bound to provide basic amenities in religious places, pointing to the example put in place at the Golden Temple where the state persuaded people living near the religious place to shift out to ensure planned development of the area around the temple. 'While the ordinance can be tested by the high court, we can ask the interim management committee that we propose to appoint to work on the holistic development of these temples. Today, religious tourism has a lot of potential as it generates employment. We should encourage it,' the bench said. The court pointed out how facilities in other places of pilgrimage such as Shirdi in Maharashtra and Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh have developed due to the influx of religious tourists. The court was informed that several temples in the area are heritage structures and need to be preserved with utmost care. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for another set of petitioners associated with nearby temples said that the Supreme Court's May 15 judgment needs to be recalled before a solution can be found to the administration of the temples. The bench said that once the judge-headed committee is in place, the collector can be part of the committee along with associating the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and architects. The ordinance brought by the state government creates a statutory trust having full authority to manage and administer all affairs of the temple and comprising 18 members, of which 7 are ex-officio government officers. The remaining trustees are appointed at the discretion of the state government with only two representatives of the Sewayat Goswami community to be appointed by the state.
