Madras High Court directs Centre, State to coordinate and take steps to protect ancient Jain monuments in and around Madurai district
The court was hearing a public interest litigation petition filed in 2019 by Madurai Jain Heritage Centre, which was represented by its secretary, S. Anandha Raj. The petitioner had sought a direction to the Archaeological Survey of India and the Department of Archaeology to appoint adequate staff to protect the Jain sites in and around the district.
The Jain caves and beds such as Yanaimalai, Tirupparankundram, Keelavalavu, Varichiyur, Keelakuyilkudi, Arittapatti, Karadipatti Perumal Malai, Kongarpuliyankulam, Vikramangalam and Mangulam should be preserved and protected, he said.
He sought a direction to the authorities concerned to take appropriate steps to curb the conversion of the protected monuments into places of religious worship and defacing of the heritage monuments.
The State submitted that six of the monuments were under the control of the State government and all measures had been taken to protect them. Watchmen had been appointed in all the six places. The Centre, however, submitted it was yet to receive necessary proposals from the State government for initiating further actions.
A Division Bench of Justices S. M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete observed it was needless to mention that coordination between the Central and the State governments for protecting the ancient monuments was of paramount importance.
The court directed the State government to coordinate with the Centre and initiate appropriate actions to protect the ancient monuments in and around Madurai district. It directed the authorities to undertake periodical inspections to protect the monuments.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
35 minutes ago
- India Gazette
Bansuri Swaraj files plea for rejection of Civil Defamation suit filed by AAP's Satyendra Jain
New Delhi [India], July 15 (ANI): Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Bansuri Swaraj moved a plea seeking rejection of the civil defamation suit filed by AAP leader Satyendra Jain against her. The Rohini court has sought a reply on the plea. Jain, in his suit, had stated that Bansuri Swaraj made defamatory remarks in an interview on a television channel in October 2023. Senior Civil Judge Gaurav Sharma sought a reply from Jain on a plea filed by Bansuri Swaraj under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Rohini court had issued a notice to Bansuri Swaraj and the news channel on November 12, 2024. Jain has prayed for direction to the TV Channel to take down the content in question and restrain her from making further statements. He had also filed a criminal defamation complaint against Bansuri Swaraj in the Rouse Avenue court. The same was dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM); an appeal of the same is pending before the Sessions court. He had claimed that these remarks were made by Bansuri Swaraj to defame him and to gain undue political advantage. It was also stated that this statement was made in the context of the Enforcement Directorate's raid on the complainant's house, for which he is on bail, and the matter is pending before the court. He alleged that Swaraj further defamed him by calling him 'corrupt' and 'fraud', adding that several false, malicious and defamatory allegations were levelled against him. It was stated that the accused has played havoc with the reputation of the complainant and the smear campaign has caused a cascading effect on the complainant as husband, father, brother, friend and common member of society, apart from scarring his otherwise unblemished political reputation. It was said that the damage and dent caused by the frivolous allegations levelled by the accused is immeasurable, as the complainant's character and reputation stand assailed not only as the elected representative and mass leader but even in his personal capacity. (ANI)
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Five social media influencers, including Samay Raina, appear before Supreme Court over remarks ‘ridiculing' disabled
India's Got Latent host Samay Raina and four other social media influencers appeared before the Supreme Court on Tuesday over a case regarding mocking disabled people. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi noted the presence of social media influencers and instructed them to submit their responses to the petition. Additionally, the bench asked them to appear again in person on the next hearing date of the case. Apart from Samay, the SC summoned Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar, also known as Sonali Aditya Desai, and Nishant Jagdsish Tanwar. The top court, however, granted Sonali Thakkar permission to appear virtually at the next hearing because of a health issue. The bench stated that social media influencers must file their replies within two weeks, and no further extension will be granted. It also warned that their absence at the next hearing will be taken seriously. The Supreme Court instructed Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, to draft social media guidelines that balance freedom of speech and expression with the rights and responsibilities of others. It stated that one person's freedom should not infringe on the rights of others and highlighted that the most challenging aspect is the enforceability of these guidelines. On May 5, the Supreme Court instructed five social media influencers to appear before it or face coercive measures, following a plea that accused them of ridiculing individuals with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), a rare disorder, as well as others with disabilities, on their show. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh instructed the Commissioner of Police of Mumbai that Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakar and Nishant Jagdsish Tanwar appear before the top court. The SC's order came after M/s Cure SMA Foundation filed a petition seeking to prevent the broadcast of derogatory and denigrating content on digital media targeting persons with disabilities. The petition also called for the development of guidelines to protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities in relation to online content broadcasting.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Flags "Grey Area" In Law Over Seeking Votes On Religion, Caste
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, while rejecting a petition seeking de-registration and de-recognition of Asaduddin Owaisi's party AIMIM, today orally remarked that there exists a "grey area" when it comes to political parties using religious and caste sentiments to get votes, which is "dangerous". A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi today refused to entertain the plea against AIMIM but allowed the petitioner to file a writ petition raising the larger issue without naming any particular party. The top court was hearing plea against the Delhi High Court's dismissal of Tirupati Narashima Murari's petition seeking quashing of the registration granted by the Election Commission to All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party. Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, however, held that under the Abhiram Singh verdict, an election petition can be filed against an individual candidate who seeks votes in name of religion and not a political party. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain for petitioners today argued that Mr Owaisi's party is in teeth of Constitution, especially the principle of Secularism. Advocate Jain cited a landmark ruling by Supreme Court in Abhiram Singh case where it was held that no-one can ask for votes in the name of religion. However, the bench said that under the Abhiram Singh verdict an election petition can be filed against individual candidate who seek votes in name of religion and not a political party. Justice Surya Kant remarked that the AIMIM's constitution is not against the Indian Constitution. "There are certain rights guaranteed to minorities in Constitution... party manifesto says it will work towards protection of those rights," Justice Kant remarked. Advocate Jain however further pressed that AIMIM's constitution also says it will promote Islamic education amongst Muslims. Advocate Jain said that this is discriminatory as if he goes before the Election Commission and sought registration of a political party with a Hindu name, saying he will promote teaching of Vedas, Upanishads etc, he won't be allowed. At this point Justice Kant said that there is nothing wrong in promoting education. "If ECI raises objection against teaching of Vedas or anything, please go to the apt forum. Law will take care of that. Nothing wrong in reading old treatise, books or literature. Absolutely no prohibition under law," Justice Kant said. Advocate Jain however argued that under Constitution only education institution can do so. But Justice Kant said that it will be great if political parties engage in promoting education. The advocate again pressed his arguments that "AIMIM promotes unity only in Muslims, why not all Indians?" The top court was not convinced with his arguments and suggested that he raise the larger issue without naming any party or person in a fresh plea. Justice Kant partially agreed with advocate Jain's argument and said, "You may be right, there is some grey area... File a petition which does not name any particular person... or accuses everyone." Justice Kant said that there are some parties which rely on caste sentiments, that's equally dangerous. The bench said that the larger perspective is reforms and granted liberty to petitioner to come to court with larger issue of parties seeking vote in names of caste and religion.
