HC dismisses petitions pertaining to Tiruchendur temple consecration
A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete took cognisance of the counter affidavit filed by the Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer of the Temple. It was submitted that consecration will be conducted by using Tamil spiritual mantras and hymns.
Dismissing the petitions, the court observed that the petitioners are unable to establish any right for the grant of the relief. In the absence of any right, the court cannot issue any direction. The procedures contemplated under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and Rules are to be followed for administering temple functions.
If there is no provision, then the government or the Commissioner should recognise certain practices, as the case may be, which were prevailing in a particular temple. However, such disputed claims cannot be decided by the court. These are all certain affairs, which are all to be considered by the HR & CE Department or the officers empowered under the provisions of the Act, the court observed.
The court said that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Commissioner for redressal of their grievance. On receipt of the representation, the Commissioner should look into it and take an appropriate decision. There cannot be any discrimination in the matter of treating the devotees or permitting the devotees to equally participate in the temple festival.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
a few seconds ago
- Indian Express
‘UAPA in its present form is constitutionally valid': Bombay HC dismisses challenge to validity of law
The Bombay High Court Thursday dismissed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and the offence of sedition. The high court passed the judgement on the 2021 plea by Anil Baburao Baile, who was issued notice in 2020 in connection with the Elgaar Parishad case. Through advocates Prakash Ambedkar, Nikhil Kamble and Hitendra Gandhi, Baile sought a declaration that the UAPA and Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) be declared as ultra vires and unconstitutional. In his plea, Baile also sought the setting aside of the July 10, 2020, notice issued to him by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). 'The UAPA in its present form is constitutionally valid, therefore, the challenge to its vires fails, and the petition is dismissed,' a bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Neela K Gokhale pronounced. 'Mr Ambedkar, you made us think (while deciding this plea),' Justice Gadkari orally remarked. In his plea, Baile also claimed that the UAPA granted 'unbridled power' to the executive to declare an organisation or an individual and their activity unlawful without defining the same in the law. He added that the amendment made in the UAPA to adopt the United Nations Security Council's 2001 resolution, which was for criminalising any person supporting international terrorism, made it possible for the government to declare an Indian citizen or an organisation as a terrorist. 'Nowhere does the Constitution authorise a blanket power to the executive in deciding and Parliament cannot be granted blanket power to declare an organisation as unlawful,' the plea argued. The Central government and NIA opposed the plea, and submitted that various pleas were pending before the high court and the Supreme Court, taking exception to the validity of the UAPA. They also referred to the pending challenge to the constitutional validity of the sedition law under Section 124A of the IPC before the Supreme Court. The detailed verdict will be made available in due course.
Hans India
30 minutes ago
- Hans India
Telangana High Court dismisses SC/ST Atrocity case against CM Revanth Reddy
In a significant legal development, the High Court has dismissed the SC and ST atrocity case filed against Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy. The case was opened at the Gachibowli police station following a complaint lodged in 2016 by a man named Peddiraju, who alleged that Reddy and his relatives attempted to encroach on society land. The case, which also included charges against Reddy's brother, Kondal Reddy, and another individual named Lakshmaiah, was initiated under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Revanth Reddy filed a petition in the High Court in 2020, seeking to have the case dismissed. Following a comprehensive hearing on the matter, the court reserved its judgment after concluding arguments from both parties on 20 June. The final ruling was delivered on Thursday, 17 July. In his remarks, the presiding judge stated that investigations revealed Reddy was not present at the scene of the alleged incident and noted a lack of substantial evidence to corroborate the complainant's allegations. Consequently, the court dismissed the case against the Chief Minister.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Bengaluru gold smuggling case: Ranya Rao sentenced to 1-year jail under Cofeposa Act, no bail allowed
The Advisory Board for the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (Cofeposa) Act has confirmed the Centre's April 22 detention order for Kannada actress Ranya Rao for a year in connection with the alleged Bengaluru gold smuggling case, and denied her bail for the duration of the jail term. Her detention was subject to confirmation by the Cofeposa Act Advisory Board. A source in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) confirmed that the Advisory Board's sentencing, and said a periodic review meeting would be held after three months. The imprisonment order is also applicable to businessman Sahil Sakariya Jain, 26, an alleged hawala dealer and associate of Rao, and Telugu actor Virat Konduru alias Tarun Konduru Raju, 36, a US passport holder. The Central Economic Intelligence Bureau under the Ministry of Finance issued the order for the detention of Ranya alias Harshavardini Ranya, 34, under the Cofeposa Act on April 22, at the request of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), and following multiple bail rejections by the Special Court for Economic Offences. The Cofeposa Act Advisory Board in Bengaluru, headed by Karnataka HC judge Justice K S Mudgal and comprising Justice E S Indiresh and Justice B S Shyam Prasad, recently confirmed the detention order of Ranya Rao and two others after arguments by counsels for the actress and officials of the Ministry of Finance. An order must be served on them by authorities regarding the confirmation of the Centre's detention order by the Advisory Board, sources said. Meanwhile, her bail plea is scheduled to come up in the Karnataka High Court next week. On May 12, Ranya Rao's mother, Rohini H P, challenged her daughter's detention under the Cofeposa Act by filing a habeas corpus plea in the Karnataka High Court. The high court has adjourned the hearings on her bail plea multiple times while awaiting the decision of the Advisory Board. The court is scheduled to hear the habeas corpus plea next week. Ranya Rao was granted default bail in the Customs Act case in which she was arrested in March this year. She has not paid the surety to avail herself of the bail due to her detention for a year under the Cofeposa Act. On March 3, DRI arrested Rao at the Bengaluru airport upon her arrival from Dubai, and recovered 14.2 kg of gold bars valued at more than Rs 12.56 crore from her possession. On March 9, DRI arrested Konduru. DRI failed to file a chargesheet within the stipulated timeframe, and she remained in custody due to ongoing proceedings under the Cofeposa Act, which allows for preventive detention of up to one year based solely on suspicion of violating foreign exchange and anti-smuggling laws. Investigation revealed Ranya Rao's suspicious travel pattern, having visited Dubai alone 34 times between 2023 and 2025. Subsequent raids at her residence uncovered gold jewellery worth Rs 2.06 crore and Rs 2.67 crore in cash, indicating the scale of the smuggling operation. Rao also faces charges under sections 135 and 104 of the Customs Act, with proceedings under Section 108 also underway. Her legal counsel has accused DRI of document manipulation, and argued that the offences are compoundable. Konduru was also denied bail in April. Although the court had granted default bail to both accused on procedural grounds, requiring two sureties each and a Rs 2 lakh bond, they were prohibited from leaving the country and warned against committing such offences again.
