Three-day Kamban Vizha begins in Puducherry
Inaugurating the event, Lieutenant Governor K. Kailashanathan said the poet has played a major role in spreading the teachings of Ramayana among the Tamil population. 'If Ram is living as God in the minds of Tamil people, it is because of Kamban,' the Lt. Governor said.
Urging the youth to inculcate the spirit and values enshrined in Kamba Ramayana, the Lt. Governor said the epic work of Kamban has withstood the test of time. The poet and his work continued to get huge recognition, he added.
Several writers and poets were honoured at the inaugural function. Retired Supreme Court Judge and Chairperson of National Human Rights Commission V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Minister N. Rangasamy, Speaker R. Selvam, Home Minister A. Namassivayam and Minister for Public Works K. Lakshminarayanan were among those who attended the inaugural event.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
13 minutes ago
- The Wire
SC Directs ASI to Consider Overseeing Preservation of Mehrauli Monuments, Bars Alterations
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to consider overseeing the preservation, upkeep and repair of the historical monuments located in Delhi's Mehrauli. A bench of Supreme Court Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan also said that no construction, additions or alterations should be made in the area without the permission from the court, reported Bar and Bench. The bench gave the directions while hearing pleas challenging Delhi high court order that had refused to direct the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to refrain from demolishing two monuments – the 13th century Ashiq Allah Dargah and Chillagah of Baba Farid in Sanjay Van. The Ashiq Allah Dargah was constructed by Sultan Qutbuddin Mubarak Shah Khilji in 1317 to honour Sheikh Shahabuddin (who was popularly known as Ashiq Allah.) Baba Farid was a famous Sufi saint and would mediate at the structure at Mehrauli. Appearing for the appellants, advocate Nizam Pasha submitted that the ASI had already identified the Dargah as dating back to the 12th century and therefore, there was no basis for placing weight on the views of a religious committee. Advocate Nitin Mishra, who appeared for the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) that the location was part of a designated forest area. Mishra added that the Authority's concern was limited to additional or incidental constructions around the Dargah, said the Bar and Bench report. Mishra added that the DDA would comply with any directions issued by the ASI, making clear that the Authority would safeguard whatever the ASI requires it to be preserved. 'There shall be no construction, additions, or alterations within the area," Justice BV Nagarathna said after hearing the order. The Court also directed that the ASI should take under its consideration the supervision of the monuments, particularly in matters of repair and renovation. "We dispose of these appeals by observing that the ASI should take under its consideration the supervision of monuments in question in the matters of repair and renovation," said the court.
Hans India
13 minutes ago
- Hans India
BJP leader Goel files complaint against 'dog lovers'
New Delhi: Former Union minister and BJP leader Vijay Goel on Tuesday alleged that "self-styled" dog lovers are obstructing the implementation of the Supreme Court order to relocate stray dogs to shelters. He announced plans to file a contempt petition regarding this issue. Goel, the organiser of the "No Dogs on Streets" campaign, also filed a complaint with the Rohini Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), stating that the MCD (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) staff were allegedly manhandled by dog lovers during an incident involving the release of a stray dog.
The Hindu
13 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court flips Centre's reference to Constituent Assembly debates on time limit for President to decide on Bills
The Union government is banking on the historic Constituent Assembly debates about the draft Constitution of India to prove the President is not fettered by specific time limits while granting assent to Bills or proposed laws. But the Supreme Court has flipped the argument by presenting a different perspective. Arguing before a five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union government, delved into the pages of the Constituent Assembly debates of May 20, 1949. Mr. Mehta showed to the court how a proviso in draft Article 91, which dealt with the President's power to assent to Bills and currently embodied in Article 111 of the Constitution, had originally mandated a time limit of six weeks for Presidents to return Bills they do not agree with to Parliament. The proviso to draft Article 91 had originally read 'that the President may, not later than six weeks after the presentation to him of a Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill to the Houses…' The Solicitor General detailed that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had intervened that day to substitute the term 'six weeks' with the phrase 'as soon as possible' in the proviso of draft Article 91. 'Thus, the specific time limit which was provided for in the Draft Constitution for providing assent, was deleted by the Constituent Assembly… The highest Executive may not be bound by the time limit of six weeks to decide on a Bill presented to her for assent… We have always followed the principle that the highest constitutional functionary, the President, will discharge duties in accordance with the law,' Mr. Mehta argued. But the Chief Justice viewed the debate from a different angle. For one, the CJI pointed out that a time limit was indeed contemplated by the founding mothers and fathers of the Indian Constitution. Justice Vikram Nath added that even the Constitutional Advisor, Shri B.N. Rau, had recommended six weeks for the President in the draft Constitution. Secondly, Chief Justice Gavai pointed out that the phrase 'as soon as possible' was inserted in relation to 'six weeks', which was considered a reasonable time for the President to take a call on Bills. 'The decision in the Constituent Assembly debates on August 20 appears to be that the President has to decide within a reasonable period… Hence, the phrase ' as soon as possible',' Chief Justice Gavai remarked. The Chief Justice, after going through the debates, found that some of the speakers in the Constituent Assembly debate on draft Article 91 had found even six weeks 'too long'. 'One of the speakers during the discussion suggested 'as soon as possible' but not later than six weeks,' Chief Justice Gavai had addressed the Solicitor General. The Chief Justice was referring to speakers like Naziruddin Ahmad on the Constituent Assembly who suggested the phrase 'as soon as may be possible' instead of 'as soon as possible' to give the President 'reasonable latitude' while dealing with the question of assent to Bills placed before her. Another Constituent Assembly speaker, P.S. Deshmukh, did not agree with Dr. Ambedkar's stand to replace 'six weeks' with 'as soon as possible', saying that the former would prompt the President to fulfil his duty to 'indicate his decision as early as possible and in no case later than six weeks'. The five-judge Bench is answering a Reference issued by the President under Article 143 on whether timelines could be imposed on the President/Governors through a judicial order. The Reference was issued merely a month after a Division Bench of the Supreme Court directed that the President and Governors cannot indefinitely sit on Bills and have to take a call in three months.
