Hindu religious leaders condemn Allahabad HC remark that Puranas written on hearsay
In its order dated May 23, a bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, while hearing a petition that pleaded to make Hindu goddess Radha a joint holder of the disputed Krishna Janambhoomi property, said that the reference given by the petitioner is based on something written in the Puranas and Samhitas wherein Shriji Radha Rani is considered as soul of Lord Krishna.
'The Pauranic illustrations are generally considered as hearsay evidence in legal context. In the case of Pauranic illustrations, these are graphic representations of stories and events and the truth of events they depict is usually based on narrative and not on direct observation or testimony. There is no evidence in support of the claim raised by the applicant that the applicant is entitled as a joint holder of said land of 13.37 acres, and the property of the applicant is also involved in suit property claimed by the plaintiff No. 1 as the birthplace of Lord Krishna,' the court said.
'Ignorance'
Reacting to the court's remarks, Avi Mukteshwaranand Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, said that the remarks made by the judge shows his ignorance on the religion.
'The judge must remember the Ram Janambhoomi case in which the Supreme Court has accepted the statements written in Skanda Puran and other religious texts of the Hindu religion and gave the property to Ram Lalla,' said the Shankaracharya in a video message.
He added that the legal system in India, as per the past orders of the Supreme Court, has to accept the Hindu religious texts when the matter is related to Hindu rights and structures.
'Puranas are scientific'
Speaking to the media, Kailashanand Giri, Mahamandaleshwar of Niranjani, also criticised the HC's remarks and said that Puranas are completely authenticated and scientific.
'The judge has the full right to decide based on his discretion, but he also has the responsibility to maintain the trust of the people. He said that we believe in God only on the basis of what is written in the Puranas. He said that we believe in God only on the basis of what is written in the Puranas. We see the form of Lord Ram and Krishna through it,' he added.
Jitendranand Saraswati, general secretary of Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, said that every scripture of Sanatan Dharma including the character of Lord Ram has been termed as 'myth' by the people in the past but they were proven wrong.
'Shrimad Bhagwat Mahapuran and Gita both are part of the Mahabharat. We cannot say that they were written on hearsay. The HC has said something like this it should reconsider its view,' he added.
Slamming the High Court, the Mahamandaleshwar of Juna Akhara, Swami Yatindranand Giri said that in a religious dispute, such religious texts are quoted while pointing out that 'Puranas', 'Vedas' and 'Upanishad' are the 'granths'. He also said that courts must think twice before hurting the religious sentiments of people.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
15 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
No law mandates closure of slaughterhouses during Paryushan Parv: HC
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused to order closure of slaughter houses for nine days coinciding with the Jain religious festival of Paryushan Parv, saying there was no such legal mandate. No law mandates closure of slaughterhouses during Paryushan Parv: HC 'You are seeking Mandamus. For that, there has to be a mandate in law. Where is the law? Where does it say that slaughter houses must be closed for 10 days,' the division bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice Sandeep Marne told the Jain petitioners who sought a nine-day closure of slaughterhouses during the festival. A mandamus is a court order compelling a government official or body to perform a specific legal duty. The Paryushan Parv commenced on Wednesday. The court had earlier directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to reconsider the Jain community's representation after it permitted only a one-day closure of slaughter houses during the festival. Pursuant to the court's directions, the BMC issued an order on August 14 extending the closure to two days—August 24 and August 27, the latter coinciding with Ganesh Chaturthi. Dissatisfied, the petitioners returned to court insisting on a full nine-day ban coinciding with the festival. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Abhinav Chandrachud cited the Hinsa Virodhak Sangh ruling, in which the Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to close slaughter houses during the festival. Mumbai has a larger Jain population than Ahmedabad, which the BMC had failed to account for, Chandrachud argued. The plea did not cover fish or seafood and a restriction on slaughter houses would not violate fundamental rights, he said. Senior advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar, also for the petitioners, maintained that the BMC had disproportionately factored in the interests of the non-vegetarian population, despite a vegetarian majority in Mumbai. He even referred to Emperor Akbar's decree prohibiting slaughter during Paryushan, remarking that it was harder to secure a similar order from the civic body. The court, however, said that unlike in Ahmedabad, no municipal decision had been made here warranting judicial support. 'You will appreciate the difficulty. In Ahmedabad the corporation had taken a decision. But (in this case), there is no legislative mandate, no rule, no law, policy, no legally enforceable right that they must close. Where is that obligation? You understand the distinction,' the court said. The judges advised the petitioners to amend their plea if they wished to challenge the BMC's decision for being arbitrary or inadequately reasoned. The matter was adjourned for two weeks, with notice issued to the BMC.
New Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Brazilian police say ex-President Bolsonaro had planned to flee to Argentina seeking asylum
BRAZILIA: Brazil's federal police said that messages found on the telephone of embattled former president Jair Bolsonaro showed that at one point he wanted to flee to Argentina and request political asylum, according to documents seen Wednesday by the Associated Press. Bolsonaro is currently awaiting a Supreme Court ruling about an alleged coup attempt and on Wednesday found out he might face another case as police formally accused him and one of his sons, Eduardo Bolsonaro, of obstruction of justice in connection with his pending trial. The AP had access to the police investigation, messaging app exchanges, voice messages and reviewed the documents, which were sent to Brazil's Supreme Court. The 170-page police report said that Bolsonaro had drafted a request for political asylum from Argentine President Javier Milei's government dated Feb. 10, 2024. Bolsonaro saved the document two days after authorities searched his home and office as part of an investigation into an alleged coup plot. In a 33-page letter addressed to Milei, Bolsonaro claimed he was being politically persecuted in Brazil. 'I, Jair Messias Bolsonaro, request political asylum from Your Excellency in the Republic of Argentina, under an urgent regime, as I find myself in a situation of political persecution in Brazil and fear for my life,' the former Brazilian leader wrote. Argentina's presidential spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Bolsonaro did not make comments about the investigation either.
The Hindu
15 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Dignity and self-respect is more important than economic development: R. Adhiyaman, Aathi Thamizhar Peravai
With CPI (M) state secretary, P. Shanmugam, backing the conservancy workers' protest and their demand for job conservancy, Aathi Thamizhar Peravai president R. Adhiyaman on Wednesday (August 20, 2025) said he would continue to oppose the demand of 'permanent government jobs' as the issue was about protecting 'dignity and self-respect' of conservancy workers, and less about their economic development. Mr. Adhiyaman said the disagreement has laid bare difference between the Communist and the Periyarist points of view in the issue of conservancy workers' protests and their demands. 'Even if there is economic development for the workers, there won't be dignity in the work. The Communist movement and Periyarist movement differ on this issue. In 2013, Supreme Court gave a verdict to abolish manual scavenging and said that the workers should be rehabilitated. Has that been done? Are all castes a part of the workforce? No. Only certain castes are involved in this work,' he told The Hindu. Mr. Adhiyaman argued that when 325 conservancy workers were recruited in Coimbatore a few years ago, close to 300 OBCs were recruited but none of them went onto collect garbage. 'Not a single person (among the BCs) went to collect garbage. They got other jobs such as drivers and so on by pulling strings. Can Comrade Shanmugam ensure that they do the job? Performing this job robs them off their dignity and a particular community is being made to do this work. No human being should do this job.' Mr. Adhiyaman said the only way to support these conservancy workers is to rehabilitate them by ensuring that they don't have to do this job again. 'It is true that they are being economically exploited through contractual work. I don't have a problem with demanding an end to exploitation. But I cannot support permanent government jobs. Their income shouldn't come from doing this work. If a 'permanent worker' dies, the son is usually given the job on compassionate grounds and he will continue to do the job because it is a permanent government job. We have seen this happen over and over again,' he said.
