
Hindu religious leaders condemn Allahabad HC remark that Puranas written on hearsay
Key religious leaders, including Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath and Mahamandaleshwar of Niranjani Akhara, have condemned the recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court in which it had declined to make Radha a party in the disputed Krishna Janabhoomi structure in Mathura stating that 'Puranas' were 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
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stays trial against former Haryana IAS officer in Manesar land case
The Supreme Court has stayed trial proceedings against former Haryana IAS officer Rajeev Arora in the Manesar land deal, investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The former IAS officer had petitioned the apex court after his revision petition challenging his summoning by a special CBI court was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana high court on May 15. A special CBI court had on December 1, 2020 ordered that the former IAS officer be summoned to face trial for committing offence under section 120-B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the Manesar land matter. However, on a revision petition filed by Arora, the Punjab and Haryana high court on December 14, 2020 had stayed the operation and implementation of the order of the special CBI court. Rejecting the challenge to the special CBI court's December 1, 2020 order, the HC on May15 said it found no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by learned special CBI court in summoning the petitioners. An apex court bench headed by chief justice BR Gavai, however, on May 29 ordered that notice be issued to the respondents and 'proceedings qua the petitioner (Rajeev Arora) shall stand stayed till the next date of hearing.' During the trial court proceedings on Friday, Special CBI judge, Rajeev Goyal while referring to the apex court's order of May 29 ordered that proceedings against all the accused persons except Rajeev Arora shall commence. The special court in its June 6 order noted that it is, therefore, seen that all the accused except accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba, DR Dhingra and Rajeev Arora, have been ordered to be charge-sheeted qua the offences as detailed in the order December 1, 2020. The court said that now arguments need to be advanced on charges in respect of accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra. Learned defence counsels seek time to prepare the arguments. Learned senior public prosecutor Harsh Mohan Singh submits that charge-sheet may kindly be framed against the accused persons who have already been ordered to be charge-sheeted vide order dated December 1,2020. 'I am not able to accept the submission made by the senior public prosecutor as it will not be appropriate to frame charge-sheet before considering the case concerning framing of charges in respect of accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra. In case, the court after hearing contentions of the said accused persons and senior public prosecutor for CBI, concludes that charges are required to be framed against said accused persons as well, then a consolidated charge-sheet qua all the accused persons shall be framed and in my opinion, it will be more appropriate if such a course is adopted, for framing charge-sheet in a piecemeal manner is not desirable. As such, to come up on July 10, 2025 for arguments on charge qua accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra,'' ordered the special court.


Hans India
19 minutes ago
- Hans India
HC grants relief to candidates
New Delhi : The Delhi High Court on Friday granted relief to CLAT-PG candidates over alleged discrepancies in the answer key and directed the consortium of NLUs to declare results soon. A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela's decision came over the plea of students in relation to a couple of answers in the key. The court, however, rejected the objection with respect to the declared answer to a third question, and asked the consortium of national law universities (NLUs) to accordingly award marks to the candidates. The court passed the order while deciding three pleas seeking rectification of errors in the final answer key of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)-PG 2025. The bench's verdict highlighted the issue of a high fee of Rs 1,000 charged by the consortium per question for raising the objection to the provisional answer key, observing there ought to be a 'fine balance' between the concerns of the candidates and the institutions. While comparing the fee charged for objected questions by other organisations, the fees sought by the consortium 'appeared to be excessive and disproportionate' but the consortium's concern that it was required to keep frivolous individuals and coaching institutes at bay also did not appear to be 'fanciful or imaginative', it added. The bench, however, expected the consortium to take heed of its observations and take appropriate steps to 'avoid such excessive fee in the next examinations'. 'It may be advisable for the consortium to place this issue before the committee headed by Justice G. Raghuram (retd) for his valuable opinion which may be adhered to by it,' the bench said. The court ruled on the correctness of the answers in the answer key after considering each question and the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and the consortium. CLAT determines admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate law courses in national law universities in the country. CLAT PG 2025 was held on December 1, 2024. Multiple pleas were filed in different high courts alleging several questions in the exam were wrong. On February 6, the Supreme Court transferred all the petitions over the issue to the Delhi High Court for a 'consistent adjudication'. The top court passed the direction on the transfer petitions of the consortium.


India Today
39 minutes ago
- India Today
US court declines Republican request to intervene in Pennsylvania voting dispute
The US Supreme Court passed up a chance to give politicians more power over how federal elections are conducted, declining on Friday to hear a Republican challenge to a Pennsylvania judicial decision requiring the counting of provisional ballots cast by voters who make mistakes on their mail-in justices turned away an appeal by the Republican National Committee and Republican Party of Pennsylvania of a decision by Pennsylvania's top court on provisional ballots that the plaintiffs said ran afoul of legislature-crafted voting rules, violating the US Constitution's election-related dispute returned to the Supreme Court after the justices, on the eve of the November 2024 presidential election, rejected the emergency bid by the Republicans to block tallying the provisional ballots. The Republicans objected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's October ruling in favour of two Butler County voters who sought to have their provisional ballots counted after their mail-in ballots were rejected during that state's 2024 presidential primary election for lacking secrecy rules in states like Pennsylvania that often play a pivotal role in determining the outcome of US presidential elections are a particularly sensitive President Donald Trump prevailed in Pennsylvania last November, but lost the state in 2020 to his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, who won the presidency that case follows a major 2023 Supreme Court ruling that allows the justices to second-guess state courts if they undermine the power that the Constitution gives state legislatures to craft election 6-3 ruling, which upheld a North Carolina state court's decision that invalidated a Republican-drawn congressional map as unlawfully disadvantaging Democrats, also rejected a more extreme theory advanced by many Republicans and conservatives that would have removed any role of state courts and state constitutions in regulating federal ruling, however, stopped short of announcing a legal test for determining when state courts have ventured too far in "arrogating to themselves" a legislature's the Pennsylvania case, Republicans asked the Supreme Court to answer that question, contending that the state supreme court's ruling violated the Constitution's elections provisions, including that the "times, places and manner" of federal elections "shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof."Provisional ballots generally protect voters from being excluded from the voting process if their eligibility is uncertain on Election Day. The vote is counted once officials confirm intervened to defend Butler County's decision not to count the ballots from these voters, saying Pennsylvania's election law does not allow provisional ballots to be counted if a mail-in ballot was received on time by a county board of intervened on the side of the voters, contending that if a mail-in ballot is defective and cannot be counted, that person has not yet voted and a provisional ballot must be divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court last October sided with the voters, saying that provisional ballots prevent double voting while protecting voters' right to have one vote action by the court was unexpected. The court had planned to release it on Monday along with its other regularly scheduled orders, but a software glitch on Friday prematurely sent email notifications concerning the court's decision in the case. "As a result, the court is issuing that order list now," said court spokesperson Patricia is not the first time the court has inadvertently disclosed action in sensitive cases. Last year, an apparent draft of a ruling in a case involving emergency abortion access in Idaho was briefly uploaded to the court's website before being taken down. That disclosure represented an embarrassment for the top US judicial body, coming two years after the draft of a blockbuster ruling rolling back abortion rights was leaked in InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#United States of America