HC refuses to interfere in Tiruchendur temple consecration timings fixed by experts in Agama principles
A Division Bench of Justices S. Srimathy and R. Vijayakumar said considering that experts in Agama principles arrived at an opinion with regard to the timings of the consecration to be held from 6 a.m. to 6.47 a.m., on July 7, the court was not inclined to interfere in the timings.
However, the court made it clear it was constrained to form an expert committee only due to the fact that the Vidhayahar of the temple had given three different Pattolais without mentioning that the first two Pattolais were draft in nature.
The court upheld the formation of the expert committee and the timings fixed by them and observed that this should not be taken as a precedent in future. Till a decision is rendered by a civil court, the supremacy of the Vidhayahar in relation to religious matters of the temple has to be protected, the court observed.
Therefore, the temple is directed to the earlier procedure of seeking opinion from the Vidhayahar through written communication alone and the Vidhayahar should indicate whether it is draft or final Pattolai while giving opinion and fixing the timing, the court said while disposing of review applications.
Meanwhile, a Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete heard a public interest litigation petition filed by A. Viyanarasu of Thoothukudi district who sought a direction to the authorities to conduct the consecration of Tiruchendur temple by using Tamil spiritual mantras and hymns equally. The court directed the petition to be tagged along with other similar petitions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Economic Times
Expanded list of docs to prove citizenship voter-friendly: SC
Synopsis The Supreme Court deemed the Election Commission's expansion of acceptable voter ID documents in Bihar as 'voter-friendly,' emphasizing increased choice. Justices highlighted that more options benefit voters, dismissing concerns about the document list's length. The court also questioned the challenge to the special intensive revision's legality, citing the Representation of the Peoples Act and the Constitution. New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally remarked that the Election Commission's decision to expand the list of acceptable documents for establishing a voter's identity in the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was "actually voter-friendly."A division bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi orally remarked that the expansion of documents leads to "expansion of choice" giving the voters "more options".Speaking for the bench, Justice Bagchi told one of the counsels for the petitioners that "we can understand your argument on exclusion of Aadhaar card but increasing the number of (acceptable) documents gives the voters more options". The Bench said this in light of contention raised by the petitioners that in the past the list of documents under a revision of rolls was not more than seven as compared to eleven in Bihar's in, Justice Kant orally remarked "things would have been different if you (voter) had to submit all the eleven documents. Then it would have been against the voters. But (in the instant case) ECI has given eleven options". The Bench also questioned the contention raised by another counsel for the petitioners that ECI did not have the power to conduct the special intensive revision (SIR). The Bench referred to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950, which says "the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit."Justice Bagchi added that the residuary power of the Election Commission flows from Article 324 of the Constitution as well. The Representation of the Peoples Act mentions both summary revision and special revision and the Commission has only added the word "intensive".Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the Election Commission should publish the list of the 65 lakh voters who were omitted from the list and also the reasons for the urged the Bench to issue an interim direction to the Commission to publish the names of persons excluded from the draft, to make the draft list on the website searchable, give names of persons recommended/not recommended by the BLO, and the reasons for case will come up for resumed hearing on Thursday when the Election Commission will present its counter. At the last hearing, on Tuesday, the Bench had verbally remarked that "largely it appears to be a case of trust deficiency".The Bench had also told the counsels for petitioners that they should "agree" with the claim of Election Commission that a "detailed inquiry is not required" for the purpose of preparing draft Bench had questioned the petitioners if it was their argument that Aadhar card is a proof of citizenship. "Do we presume that it is your argument that Aadhar is proof of citizenship?", the Bench had questioned one of the counsels for the petitioners. Referring to the Aadhar act, the Bench had said that the Election Commission of India was right in submitting that an Aadhaar card is not a conclusive proof of citizenship. The argument by petitioners that electors in Bihar do not have a majority of documents sought by the ECI as proof did not find favour with the Bench. "Largely, it appears to be a case of trust is an integral part of India. If people in Bihar do not have (the documents) then people in other states won't also have", Justice Kant had orally observed on Tuesday.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Expanded list of docs to prove citizenship voter-friendly: SC
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally remarked that the Election Commission's decision to expand the list of acceptable documents for establishing a voter's identity in the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was "actually voter-friendly." A division bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi orally remarked that the expansion of documents leads to "expansion of choice" giving the voters "more options". Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 4 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 3 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals By Vaibhav Sisinity View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 2 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass Batch-1 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Speaking for the bench, Justice Bagchi told one of the counsels for the petitioners that "we can understand your argument on exclusion of Aadhaar card but increasing the number of (acceptable) documents gives the voters more options". The Bench said this in light of contention raised by the petitioners that in the past the list of documents under a revision of rolls was not more than seven as compared to eleven in Bihar's SIR. Weighing in, Justice Kant orally remarked "things would have been different if you (voter) had to submit all the eleven documents. Then it would have been against the voters. But (in the instant case) ECI has given eleven options". The Bench also questioned the contention raised by another counsel for the petitioners that ECI did not have the power to conduct the special intensive revision (SIR). Live Events The Bench referred to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950, which says "the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit." Justice Bagchi added that the residuary power of the Election Commission flows from Article 324 of the Constitution as well. The Representation of the Peoples Act mentions both summary revision and special revision and the Commission has only added the word "intensive". Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the Election Commission should publish the list of the 65 lakh voters who were omitted from the list and also the reasons for the omission. Bhushan urged the Bench to issue an interim direction to the Commission to publish the names of persons excluded from the draft, to make the draft list on the website searchable, give names of persons recommended/not recommended by the BLO, and the reasons for deletion. The case will come up for resumed hearing on Thursday when the Election Commission will present its counter. At the last hearing, on Tuesday, the Bench had verbally remarked that "largely it appears to be a case of trust deficiency". The Bench had also told the counsels for petitioners that they should "agree" with the claim of Election Commission that a "detailed inquiry is not required" for the purpose of preparing draft rolls. The Bench had questioned the petitioners if it was their argument that Aadhar card is a proof of citizenship. "Do we presume that it is your argument that Aadhar is proof of citizenship?", the Bench had questioned one of the counsels for the petitioners. Referring to the Aadhar act, the Bench had said that the Election Commission of India was right in submitting that an Aadhaar card is not a conclusive proof of citizenship. The argument by petitioners that electors in Bihar do not have a majority of documents sought by the ECI as proof did not find favour with the Bench. "Largely, it appears to be a case of trust is an integral part of India. If people in Bihar do not have (the documents) then people in other states won't also have", Justice Kant had orally observed on Tuesday.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
'Bro ended language war': From Kannada to Hindi, Bengaluru residents stage multilingual protest, demand tax refund over shoddy infra
Residents of Bengaluru's Balagere area staged a unique and peaceful protest this week, demanding accountability from government officials over the city's deteriorating infrastructure. With chronic traffic congestion, crumbling roads, and persistent delays in development projects, frustrated locals gathered to voice their concerns, calling either for genuine improvements or a refund of their hard-earned tax money. Protestors held up placards reading, 'Refund our taxes, we will build our city.' The demonstration drew attention not only for its message but also for its inclusivity. Participants expressed their demands in multiple languages, including Kannada, Tamil, Telugu, Hindi, and English, highlighting that their protest transcended linguistic and cultural boundaries. Their central demand was for functional, dignified civic infrastructure and the responsible use of public funds. Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 4 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 3 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals By Vaibhav Sisinity View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 2 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass Batch-1 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program The video of the protest quickly circulated on social media, garnering widespread attention. 'Bro destroyed language debate, raised real debate,' one user commented. Another added, 'This should be done all over India! No service, no tax.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cardiologists Recommend: Eat 1 Teaspoon Tonight - Wake Up With a Flatter Stomach Break The Weight Learn More Undo Protestors voiced their frustration over the lack of visible progress in their neighbourhoods, where roads remain unpaved, footpaths are damaged, and daily commutes have become increasingly difficult. Frequent traffic jams and slow-moving construction work have compounded residents' hardships, leading many to accuse authorities of apathy and neglecting their basic civic rights. Despite the intensity of their demands, the protest remained peaceful. It served both as a statement and a plea for change, reminding authorities that Bengaluru's citizens expect tangible returns on their investment in the city's development. Live Events Inputs from agencies
