Detailed report sought on temple demolition in Hyderabad's Banjara Hills
Justice Vijaysen Reddy issued notices to the Hyderabad District Collector and local Tahsildar, adjourning the matter to August 18. The court was hearing a lunch-motion petition filed by Palle Vinod Kumar Reddy of Himayatnagar, who alleged that the July 24 demolition violated Articles 14, 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The petitioner claimed that officials had razed the temple and removed the idol without prior notice, consultation with devotees, or adherence to religious customs, and sought reinstallation of the idol under Endowments Department supervision, rebuilding of the temple at government expense, and legal action against the responsible officials.
Counsel for the petitioner alleged the demolition was carried out at 3 am to avoid public resistance, calling it an affront to devotees' sentiments. The government's counsel said the land was government property and the demolition was to prevent encroachment. Justice Vijaysen Reddy directed that the idol be kept safe until the next hearing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
17 minutes ago
- Hans India
Modi distorting history, alleges Ramakrishna
Rajamahendravaram: CPI state secretary KRamakrishna accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of distorting Indian history by ignoring the Indian National Congress and Communists' role in the fight against British colonial rule. Addressing the media here on Saturday, he criticised Modi for spreading falsehoods about the RSS, which initially rejected the national flag and Dr BRAmbedkar's Constitution post-independence. Ramakrishna alleged the BJP still lacks faith in the Constitution, citing Modi's earlier remarks about amending it if the party won 400 Lok Sabha seats. He noted the BJP's recent electoral setback forced it to form a coalition with parties like the TDP. Ramakrishna questioned Modi's claim of reducing poverty by 25 per cent, asking why free rice distribution continues for millions if poverty has declined. He accused the Modi government of favoring industrialists like Adani and Ambani through its policies. On the Polavaram Project, Ramakrishna alleged collusion between the central and state governments to deceive the poor. He claimed the Modi government's policies harm project evacuees, with plans to reduce the dam's height to lower compensation, potentially turning it into a barrage. He highlighted the plight of tribal communities in submerged areas, enduring floodwaters for three months called the state-promoted Banakacherla project a 'hoax,' warning against private control of irrigation projects. He questioned the feasibility of its ₹2 lakh crore cost, with Rs 1 lakh crore from private sources. While supporting the free bus scheme, he stressed the need for 3,000 more buses and 10,000 staff for effective implementation. The CPI demanded land allocation and Rs 5 lakh for home construction for the alleged EVM misuse aided Modi's rise and announced a national CPI meeting in Chandigarh to counter the 'autocratic policies' of both governments. CPI leaders KVVPrasad, Tatipaka Madhu, KRambabu, and V. Kondal Rao attended the press conference.
India.com
17 minutes ago
- India.com
Voter Adhikar Yatra Live Updates: Rahul Gandhi to embark on his Yatra from Bihar's Sasaram, to cover over 20 districts, 1300 kilometers
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi will embark on a 'Voter Adhikar Yatra' across Bihar from Sasaram on Sunday. His party has asserted that it will fight for the 'one person, one vote' principle and not accept the Election Commission becoming a 'compartment' of the BJP's 'so-called double engine'. Rahul Gandhi, along with RJD's Tejashwi Yadav and other Mahagathbandhan leaders, will undertake the 16-day and 1,300 km-long yatra from Sasaram. The Yatra will conclude with a rally in Patna on September 1. In a post in Hindi on X, Gandhi said, '16 days, 20+ districts, 1,300+ km. We are coming among the people with the Voter Adhikar Yatra. This is a fight to protect the most basic democratic right – 'one person, one vote'.' 'Join us in Bihar to save the Constitution,' he added. It is important to note that the 'yatra' will be in a hybrid mode, on foot and by vehicle, as was Gandhi's Manipur to Mumbai Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra ahead of the Lok Sabha polls, party leaders said. Voter Adhikar Yatra Live Updates:
Hans India
17 minutes ago
- Hans India
Rahul's disclosure - Balancing between candour and discretion
In the India-China debate, candour demands telling the nation what it must know, while discretion shields what must never be revealed. Leadership is tested not in choosing one over the other, but in keeping 'both in balance, so that truth and security march together. In today's India-China discourse, that balance is not optional; it is vital. Onlywhen India-China frontier vigilance and democratic resilience stand together does the nation remain unshaken. The storm over Rahul Gandhi's revelation that 2000 Square km of Indian territory, after the December 2022 Yangtse clash in Arunachal Pradesh, was under Chinese occupation, echoes political reflex, not reason. The Supreme Court's remark, 'If you are a true Indian, you would not say this' may lead to effectively challenging the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition. As the verbal crossfire escalated, the BJP charged Rahul Gandhi with endangering national security, while the Congress accused Modi government of concealing truths as regards China, distilling its attack as 'deny, distract, lie and justify (DDLJ)'. When Rahul Gandhi stated that China had occupied Indian territory he was not merely citing a number, but entering a long-contested arena where the boundaries between strategic fact, political contest, and constitutional liberty blur. Whether his figure rests on classified inputs, field intelligence or political positioning is a fair subject for scrutiny and may be for discussion. Yet the right to voice such a view, and the equally important right to question it, are constitutional guarantees, not privileges. Freedom of speech and the right to seek accountability remain at the very core of citizenship in a sovereign democratic republic. To ask the Leader of Opposition, 'The shadow Prime Minister' in Parliamentary-Constitutional terms, 'Are you an Indian' for stating a contested territorial claim, amounts to shifting the debate in ways that weaken democratic dialogue and fuel political polarization. The Constitution that empowers the 'Prime Minister' to negotiate with the neighbouring country, equally empowers the 'shadow Prime Minister' to question those negotiations. In 'The Wisdom of China and India', Lin Yutang described the balance between 'candour and discretion' as a hallmark of enduring civilizations, a balance that means being honest and open while remaining mindful of context, audience, and the potential impact of words. Yutang presented this not as a formal political dictum but as part of a broader reflection on the qualities that enable civilizations to survive. For him, candour (openness and truthfulness) and discretion (prudence and restraint) are complementary virtues, each incomplete without the other, and essential to the society's moral resilience. His context, however, was cultural and philosophical, never about India-China border politics. Yet the principle strikingly resonates with diplomacy and statecraft, as in the case of Rahul's alleged controversial remarks. Though Yutang never used the precise phrase 'candour and discretion' either in 'The Wisdom of China and India' or elsewhere, the idea captures a central theme-truth tempered by restraint. These two sentences: 'Criticism as the highest intellectual effort that mankind is capable of, and above all, the most difficult attainment of an educated man' and 'There is no such thing as true freedom of speech……No one can afford to let his neighbours know what he is thinking about them' together convey the meaning. They underscore Lin's belief that speaking truthfully is admirable, but carries a cost like Rahul's remarks on Chinese occupation. In the India-China debate, candour demands telling the nation what it must know, while discretion shields what must never be revealed. Leadership is tested not in choosing one over the other, but in keeping 'both in balance, so that truth and security march together. In today's India-China discourse, that balance is not optional; it is vital. The Yangtse clash was no isolated skirmish. It was another calculated move in a long series of Chinese provocations designed to 'probe India's strategic patience.' Its pattern echoed the choreography of earlier confrontations, most starkly the bloody Galwan Valley clash of June 2020. In 2017, the 73-day Doklam stand-off, over a plateau claimed by Bhutan but critical to India's security, ended in what was hailed as a diplomatic success. Yet Beijing's road-building therepressed on, exposing the limits of such victories. The much-touted 1993 and 1996 'confidence-building agreements' between India and China now stand as hollow reminders that paper assurances cannot restrain a determined adversary. The 'right to expression and the right to question are not luxuries' for calm times; they are the 'democratic armour citizens must wear even in times of strain.' Guarding borders is a solemn duty, but guarding the freedoms that permit questioning is an equally sacred obligation. The India-China frontier is not just a cartographic demarcation; it is a living, shifting fault line where history, strategy, and politics collide. Since Independence, relations between these two newly freed Asian Giants have unfolded as a saga of misplaced hope, cultural nostalgia, strategic misjudgment, and unforgiving geopolitical realities, entwined with aspirations of Pan-Asian solidarity, shared civilisational wisdom, and moral leadership in a world still struggling to heal from the brutality of war and the shadow of imperialism. India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru believed that India and China were sisters awakening after centuries of slumber under foreign rule. He established diplomatic relations with Mao Zedong's China when many nations hesitated. Nehruvian diplomacy led to signing of 'Panchsheel'. Later, Nehru declared in the Lok Sabha, 'Panchsheel is not a mere diplomatic device. It is the very basis of our moral philosophy in international affairs.' Mao endorsed the spirit. Zhou Enlai during his visits to India reinforced the image of Sino-Indian friendship saying, 'Our two countries are linked by the Himalayas, and even these high mountains should not divide us.' Soon the 'Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai' phrase became popular. Nehru's great grandson Rahul's assertion that 'China occupied Indian territory' should not be seen as weakening national resolve. This is not merely about land lost or held, but it is about the square space essential for free expression and rigorous questioning. Supreme Court questioning Rahul Gandhi is both revealing and troubling. Whether symbolic, rhetorical, or reactionary, such a query rests on shaky ground. Why should dissent or questioning define nationality? The 'challenge before India is to guard icy heights where the flag flies, yet, the flag loses meaning without civic freedoms' the wind that keeps it aloft and the moral frontier as vital to defend as is the territorial one.
