SC refuses to entertain plea challenging Bodh Gaya Temple Act; asks petitioner to move HC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea challenging the vires of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, and asked the petitioner to approach the concerned high court. SC refuses to entertain plea challenging Bodh Gaya Temple Act; asks petitioner to move HC
The Mahabodhi temple complex in Bihar's Bodh Gaya, a UNESCO World Heritage site, is one of the four holy areas related to the life of Lord Gautam Buddha. Bodh Gaya is a place where Lord Buddha is believed to have attained enlightenment.
A plea challenging the vires of the 1949 Act came up for hearing before a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran.
The bench asked the petitioner's counsel about the prayer sought in the plea.
"I have prayed that the Bodh Gaya Temple Act should be annulled as ultra vires," the counsel said.
The bench said the petitioner should approach the concerned high court.
"Why don't you do it before the high court?" the bench asked.
"We are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the high court," the bench said.
The 1949 Act pertains to the better management of the temple.
The Mahabodhi temple complex comprises a 50-metre high grand temple, the Vajrasana, the sacred Bodhi tree and six other sacred sites of Buddha's enlightenment, surrounded by numerous ancient votive stupas, well maintained and protected by inner, middle and outer circular boundaries.
A seventh sacred place, the Lotus Pond, is located outside the enclosure to the south. Both the temple area and the Lotus Pond are surrounded by circulating passages at two or three levels, and the area of the ensemble is 5 metres below the level of the surrounding land.
In April this year, Rashtriya Lok Morcha supremo and former Union minister Upendra Kushwaha demanded an amendment in the provisions of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, so that the management of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara Temple can be handed over to the Buddhists.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
SC refuses to entertain Lalit Modi's plea seeking that BCCI pay penalty imposed on him by ED
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by former Indian Premier League chairperson Lalit Modi seeking directions to the Board of Control for Cricket in India to pay a Rs 10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate for violating the Foreign Exchange Management Act, Live Law reported. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan said that Modi could pursue civil remedies seeking indemnification. The bench was dealing with an appeal filed by the former IPL chairperson against a Bombay High Court order dismissing his plea, Bar and Bench reported. Modi has been under investigation by Indian authorities for alleged foreign exchange violations and a Rs 425-crore television rights deal for the 2009 edition of the IPL with World Sports Group. He fled India after attending only one interrogation session with the Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate officials in Mumbai. In 2018, the Enforcement Directorate imposed a fine of Rs 121.56 crore on several entities, including the BCCI, its then chairperson N Srinivasan and others. Out of this amount, Modi had been ordered to pay Rs 10.65 crore, Bar and Bench reported. The penalty, which was part of the larger Enforcement Directorate investigation into the 2009 edition of the IPL, was imposed after it was alleged that over Rs 243 crore was allegedly transferred outside India in contravention of Foreign Exchange Management Act regulations. On December 19, the High Court had dismissed a petition filed by Modi seeking an order to the BCCI to pay the penalty, calling it 'frivolous' and 'wholly misconceived', PTI reported. It also imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine on Modi. In his petition, Modi had said that he served as the BCCI vice president and the chairperson of the IPL governing council when the alleged violations took place. He argued that on this account, the BCCI was obligated to indemnify him under its bylaws. However, the High Court, citing a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, said that the BCCI was not considered a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence no writ could be issued against it, PTI reported. Modi subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision. In the Supreme Court on Monday, the bench reiterated that the BCCI was not a 'state' under Article 12 and hence not directly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, except in certain limited functional public duties like organising sports events, Live Law reported.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
Supreme Court rejects Lalit Modi's plea asking BCCI to pay ₹10.65 crore FEMA penalty
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed former cricket administrator Lalit Modi's plea seeking an order directing the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to pay a penalty of ₹ 10.65 crore imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan ruled that Lalit Modi could pursue civil remedies available under the law but refused to compel the BCCI to bear the penalty amount. This Supreme Court decision follows a December 19, 2023, ruling by the Bombay High Court which had termed Lalit Modi's petition 'frivolous and wholly misconceived,' while imposing a cost of ₹ 1 lakh on him. The Bombay High Court had observed that the penalty was personally imposed on Lalit Modi by the adjudicating authority under FEMA, and there was no legal basis to direct the BCCI to pay the fine. Lalit Modi had contended that during his tenure as the BCCI's vice-president and chairman of the Indian Premier League (IPL) governing council—a subcommittee of the BCCI—the board was obliged under its bylaws to indemnify him for actions taken in his official capacity. However, the Bombay High Court referred to a 2005 Supreme Court judgment clarifying that the BCCI does not qualify as a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Bombay HC held that no writ could be issued against the BCCI in matters unrelated to the discharge of public functions. 'In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner in the context of penalties imposed by the ED, there is no question of discharge of any public function, and therefore, for this purpose, no writ could be issued to the BCCI,' the High Court had stated. Despite clear directions from the Supreme Court, Lalit Modi had filed the petition in 2018, which the High Court dismissed. The Supreme Court on Monday, 30 June, upheld this dismissal, reiterating that Lalit Modi's plea was without merit.
Hans India
4 hours ago
- Hans India
Letter petition urges SC to take suo motu cognizance of Kolkata law college gang-rape case
A letter petition has been addressed to the Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, urging the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognizance of the heinous gang-rape of a law student within her college premises at Kasba in South Kolkata. On June 25, a first-year female law student was allegedly raped on the premises of South Calcutta Law College by three accused, all linked to the Trinamool Congress' student wing, Trinamool Chhatra Parishad (TMCP). The plea urged the top court to take suo motu cognizance of the incident and sought directions for an immediate and impartial investigation into the matter. It prayed for immediate transfer of the investigation of the rape case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with a direction for time-bound conclusion of probe. Further, the plea filed by advocate Satyam Singh sought directions to the West Bengal government to pay interim compensation of Rs 50 lakh to the victim for medical treatment, rehabilitation, and legal expenses. Apart from seeking directions to provide immediate and comprehensive protection to the victim, her family members and all witnesses related to the case, the letter petition demanded for framing of comprehensive directions for women's safety in educational institutions. The plea urged the apex court to direct appropriate action against Trinamool Congress leaders, including Kalyan Banerjee and Madan Mitra, and other public representatives who engaged in victim-shaming and made derogatory remarks. Trinamool legislator Madan Mitra, infamous for his frequent loose comments, made a controversial statement claiming that the rape incident had sent a message to all girls that they should not go the college when it is closed. Following Mitra's controversial comments, the Trinamool Congress issued a statement claiming that the remarks were made in his individual capacity and hence the party had unequivocally disassociated itself from his statements and strongly condemned them. The party later served a show-cause notice to Mitra.
