Publish inscriptions of Nataraja temple in book format: Villupuram MP Ravikumar
'These inscriptions are vital not just to the history of the Chidambaram temple, but to over a thousand years of Tamil Nadu's cultural, political and social evolution,' Ravikumar said, urging Minister Thangam Thennarasu to prioritise the initiative.
Raising the issue in the Lok Sabha, Ravikumar had sought details from the Union government on the status of documentation of inscriptions at the temple, which contains epigraphical records dating back to the 10th century CE, including those from the reign of Aditya Chola I, the Pandyas, and Vijayanagara rulers.
In a written reply, Union Minister for Culture Gajendra Singh Shekhawat said the Epigraphy Branch of the ASI has documented 297 inscriptions from the temple, mostly from the period of Rajendra Chola I and later.
While summaries of these inscriptions were published in the Annual Reports on Indian Epigraphy (1888-1963), and 157 full texts appear in the South Indian Inscriptions series, these publications are available only for purchase at ASI offices, museums, and protected monument sites.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
22 minutes ago
- Hans India
India is ready for it
New Delhi: Sending a strong message the day after US President Donald Trump ratcheted up the tariff war against India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stressed that India will never compromise with the interests of its farmers and fishermen. Modi said that while he knows he will 'have to pay the price', he was ready to do it for farmers. Addressing the MS Swaminathan Centenary International Conference at Delhi, the Prime Minister said, "The interest of farmers is our top priority. India will never compromise with the interests of its farmers, livestock holders, and fishermen. And I know that I will have to pay a huge price for this personally, but I am ready. India is ready, for the sake of the country's farmers, fishermen and livestock holders," the Prime Minister said, minutes after Trump's tariffs kicked in. Paying his respects to MS Swaminathan, the architect of the Green Revolution, Modi said, "Building on the legacy of food security, the next frontier for our agricultural scientists is ensuring nutritional security for all." India exports a wide variety of agricultural products to the US and is one of the sectors set to bear the brunt of Trump's tariffs. Trump on Wednesday announced an extra 25 per cent tariff on Indian exports as 'penalty' for New Delhi continuing to import Russian crude oil. Earlier, US had imposed 25 per cent tariffs on Indian exports on July 20. With the total tariffs on Indian exports to the US rising to 50 per cent, the Ministry of External Affairs responded that the US targeting India over Russian oil imports is "unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable". "We have already made clear our position on these issues, including the fact that our imports are based on market factors and done with the overall objective of ensuring the energy security of 1.4 billion people of India. It is therefore extremely unfortunate that the US should choose to impose additional tariffs on India for actions that several other countries are also taking in their own national interest," it said, stressing that India "will take all actions necessary to protect its national interests". Ties between India and the US have been uneasy in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, India's counterstrike after the Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam that left 26 innocents dead. Trump has repeatedly claimed that he brokered the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, a claim denied by the Narendra Modi government. "We had said from day one that our action was non-escalatory. No leader in the world asked us to stop Operation Sindoor," Prime Minister Modi said during the Operation Sindoor debate in Parliament. Tariff hikes have followed these claims. Trump's tariffs also play out against the backdrop of the pause on talks on an India-US trade deal.
Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC, Centre spar over examining unopposed election of legislators
The Supreme Court and the Union government were at odds on Thursday on the issue of whether courts should examine the issue of 'unopposed' legislators getting an easy walk-through into Parliament and assemblies as the top court said the issue raises an interesting question worth examining while the Centre dismissed it as an 'academic' exercise not meriting interference by courts. The Supreme Court was considering this issue in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, which threw up questions on whether the law allowing an unopposed candidate to enter Parliament or Assembly defeats the right of voters to choose their elected representatives or even exercise the option of NOTA provided by the court. (ANI) A bench headed by justice Surya Kant said, 'This issue slightly appears to be an extension of the NOTA principle. If there is only one candidate and electors don't want him to be elected through NOTA, that is a silent expression of the electorate which is an interesting question.' The none of the above (NOTA) option is provided by the Election Commission (EC) for voters who do not choose to endorse their support to any of the candidates in the fray. The bench, also comprising justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh, further deliberated, 'The election of unopposed candidate is not in the hands of the people. So, they may want to go and vote for NOTA as well. This is an issue which will require some examination.' The observations came after attorney general R Venkataramani, appearing for the Union government, informed the court that the Centre has reflected on the issue and found it to be an 'academic' question that need not be interfered with at the instance of the courts. He said: 'After 1991, there is hardly any instance of candidates getting elected unopposed. Why should the court go into such an academic question?' Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for direct election of candidates in an uncontested election. The court was considering this issue in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, which threw up questions on whether the law allowing an unopposed candidate to enter Parliament or Assembly defeats the right of voters to choose their elected representatives or even exercise the option of NOTA provided by the court. The petitioner disputed the Centre's version terming the issue 'academic' and mentioned 26 instances of unopposed or uncontested candidates making it to Parliament since 1952. Additional solicitor general (ASG) SD Sanjay, also appearing for Centre, pointed out going by the logic that if NOTA option is exercised against the lone candidate in fray, the elections would be countermanded. 'If fresh elections are to be held, same situation will again arise. There will be no end,' the ASG said. The bench replied, 'That situation won't arise as by the next election, all political parties will set up candidates.' Earlier this year, the court had sought a response from EC, which had said that no election had been decided with a majority of NOTA votes since 2013 when the Supreme Court directed this option to be provided on the electronic voting machines. It further stated that since the coming of the 1951 Act, there were only nine such instances. The petitioner argued that the issue can be decided for the future as voters cannot be deprived of choosing their elected representatives due to section 53(2) of the 1951 Act. In April, the court observed that any candidate getting elected should be able to get a minimum threshold of votes of his/her constituency, which could range from 5-15% of the total votes in the parliamentary/assembly segment. The court had then observed: 'We have to create a mechanism that may or may not be utilised. Keeping the growing trend and dimensions in the political field, there is a possibility of some affluent candidate getting elected unopposed when those who are contesting withdraw. Voters may suddenly realise they have no choice, and they cannot oppose as he will be elected. In such a situation, both EC and the voters are helpless.'
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Will vacate official bungalow ahead of deadline: CJI Gavai
Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai on Thursday said that he will vacate his official residence before the deadline mandated under the Supreme Court Judges Rules, even as he acknowledged personal constraints in securing a new home before his retirement on November 24. Will vacate official bungalow ahead of deadline: CJI Gavai The statement, coming just days after the Supreme Court administration formally asked the Union government to evict former CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud from the official residence of a serving CJI, acquires added significance. 'Till 24th of November, I will not find time to find a suitable house. But I can assure you that whatever time is permissible as per the rules, I will be shifting before that,' CJI Gavai said at a farewell event for Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, who demits office on August 9. The rules entitle a judge to retain a government residence for a month post-retirement. In the case of a retired CJI, Rule 3B of the Supreme Court Judges (Amendment) Rules, 2022, permits six months' rent-free stay in a Type VII accommodation, but not the Type VIII bungalow allotted to a serving CJI. The public assertion by the current CJI comes in the immediate backdrop of an unprecedented communication dated July 1 from the Supreme Court administration to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), demanding that Bungalow No 5, Krishna Menon Marg -- the official residence of India's Chief Justice, be vacated by former CJI Chandrachud, who retired in November 2024 but continued to occupy the premises eight months later. Significantly, both CJI Gavai and his predecessor, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, chose not to move into the Krishna Menon Marg bungalow and instead remained in their earlier residences. In praising Justice Dhulia for promptly vacating his accommodation, Justice Gavai further said: 'After retirement, he is going to be in Delhi and he will be one of the judges who will be vacating the house immediately on the next date of his retirement. As a matter of fact, that's a rarity. I wish I would also be in a position to do so.' 'Justice Dhulia has set a good, very good example. I am sure that many of us will emulate him,' CJI Gavai added. As reported first by Hindustan Times on July 6, the Supreme Court's administration had written to MoHUA asking it to take possession of the CJI's official bungalow from Justice Chandrachud 'without any further delay,' noting that the permission granted for retention had expired on May 31, 2025, and that the six-month statutory period under Rule 3B had ended on May 10. In a rare move, the apex court not only invoked the violation of statutory timelines but also emphasised that despite prior extensions 'granted under special circumstances', the residence must now be returned to the judicial housing pool. Justice Chandrachud attributed his delay in moving to ongoing renovations, halted earlier due to construction bans under GRAP-IV pollution control measures. He also cited pressing personal reasons, including the special medical needs of his two daughters suffering from nemaline myopathy, a rare neuromuscular disorder. He added that he had already been allotted rental accommodation by the government and would shift 'the very next day the house is ready'. Justice Chandrachud vacated the Krishna Menon bungalow on August 1. Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Judges Rules, 1959, permits a judge to retain their official residence rent-free for one month after retirement. Rule 3B, introduced in 2022, allows a retired CJI to stay for six months post-retirement in a Type VII residence, but not in the Type VIII bungalow reserved for the serving CJI and other judges of the Supreme Court.
