HC nixes plea challenging Ramayan, Veda workshops
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
With this order, these workshops proposed in the basic schools of the state can now be organised.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhasali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra gave this verdict on May 22 while dismissing the PIL filed by Dr Chaturanan Ojha.
The director issued a letter on May 5, 2025, requesting all BSAs to make arrangements for summer workshops organised by the institute in all 75 districts.
Ojha challenged the letter, calling it discriminatory. He argued that it promoted a particular religion. He added that such directives in public schools were unconstitutional.
The court while dismissing the petition observed, "The petitioner, without disclosing his credentials except for as noticed hereinbefore, claiming himself to be a socially conscious citizen and an academic, has failed to comply with the requirements of the Allahabad High Court Rules pertaining to filing of the public interest litigation, which requires several declarations."
"The petitioner has nowhere indicated as to how and in what manner, he came in possession of the said documents, being a resident of district Deoria as the communication has been issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Maharajganj, a different district. The petitioner apparently has attempted to suppress his credentials," added the court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
2 hours ago
- United News of India
'If you were a true Indian, you would not say this," SC raps Rahul Gandhi over Army remarks
New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court today pulled up Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for his alleged remarks against the Indian Army during the 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra, questioning the veracity and propriety of his statements. The Court said such comments were unbecoming of a 'true Indian' and sought to know the basis for his claims regarding Chinese incursions. A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih was hearing Gandhi's plea challenging a defamation case filed over his December 16, 2022, remarks made after a border clash between Indian and Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh. 'If you were a true Indian, you would not say all these things,' Justice Datta observed during the hearing. The Bench questioned Gandhi's claim that 2,000 km of Indian territory had been occupied by China. 'Are you there? Do you have any credible material? Why would you make these statements without anything?' Justice Datta questioned the credibility of statements and said that public figures have a responsibility when making sensitive statements. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gandhi, argued that the remarks were political in nature and made in the public interest. He read out the actual statements made by Gandhi and contended that the defamation complaint was politically motivated. 'There is a technique now, become an MP and file defamation for any criticism,' Singhvi submitted, arguing that the complaint was an abuse of the legal process. However, the Court appeared unconvinced, and Justice Datta further asked why such comments were made via social media instead of being raised in Parliament. Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the complainant Uday Shankar Srivastava, opposed the plea and submitted that the High Court had already examined the issue. He stated that relevant materials and statements were on record justifying the continuation of proceedings. The defamation case arises from Gandhi's statement, 'Chinese soldiers are beating up Indian Army personnel,' which the complainant claimed was defamatory and demoralising to the armed forces. Earlier, on March 29, 2025, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had dismissed Gandhi's plea challenging the Magistrate Court's summons in the matter. Despite the scathing observations, the Supreme Court today issued notice and granted an interim stay on further proceedings in the defamation case. The matter will be heard again after three weeks. Separately, on May 27, a special MP-MLA court in Varanasi dismissed a petition against Gandhi over his reference to Lord Ram as a "fictional character" during a speech at a US university. The complaint, filed by Advocate Harishankar Pandey, was rejected as 'non-maintainable' under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. In another defamation case related to Gandhi's remarks against freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the Supreme Court on April 24, 2025, had stayed the Allahabad High Court's order refusing to quash the summons. During that hearing, Justice Datta had warned Gandhi against making 'further irresponsible statements,' cautioning that the Court may take up the matter suo motu if required. The Apex Court had extended the stay on that case on July 25. UNI SNG AAB
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
‘What was the tearing hurry?': SC questions UP govt on Banke Bihari ordinance; may put corridor nod on hold
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Uttar Pradesh government's move to take over the management of the Shri Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan, stating that key stakeholders had not been heard before the May 15 order allowing the corridor project was passed. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi questioned the state's decision-making, particularly the urgency with which it enacted the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025. 'What stopped you from acquiring the entire land and properties from your corpus in public interest? What was the tearing hurry in enacting the ordinance, when the matter was sub-judice? Providing basic amenities and developing the area is the duty of the state. There are numerous instances where the state's participation has helped in developing the religious places like in Golden Temple in Amritsar,' the bench observed. The court said it would pass orders on August 5 to put the May 15 direction in abeyance and appoint a retired high court or district judge to oversee daily management of the temple. The proposed committee would also include other stakeholders and focus on managing the temple and surrounding areas. The bench expressed concern about the state approaching the court without informing key parties. 'Less said the better. How do you justify the directions passed by the court? The state in the most unfortunate way came to the court in the most clandestine manner without informing the court receiver or stakeholders... Get the directions behind their back and set aside the order of the high court. This is the least thing we expect from the state,' the bench said. At present, the court is not examining the constitutionality of the ordinance. That issue will be taken up by the Allahabad High Court. The top court will instead look into interim arrangements for managing the temple and adjacent developments. 'This is the land of Lord Krishna. He was the first mediator known to the world. Let's find a way out to resolve the dispute pending for years and develop the area in the interest of lakhs of devotees who visit these iconic religious places. Basic amenities need to be created as nowadays religious tourism is one of the biggest sources of revenue,' the bench added. During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, representing the state, said a member of the Goswami community had approached the court but was not supported by others. The bench questioned why all warring factions were not heard and asked whether the court receiver in charge of temple management had been consulted. The court also questioned the state's use of temple funds for acquiring five acres of land for a holding area. It asked why public funds were not used instead and again raised concern about the urgency of the ordinance when the matter was already under judicial consideration. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the temple's managing committee, said the order had been passed without giving them an opportunity to be heard. He said since it was a private temple, notice to them was necessary. The court responded by stating that the term 'private temple' was not applicable in this context, given the scale of public involvement and the number of devotees who visit annually. The top court asked Nataraj to seek instructions from the state and adjourned the matter to August 5. It clarified that the High Court would examine the legality of the ordinance and that the Supreme Court would adjust its May 15 directions accordingly. Petitioners, including members of the managing committee, have been asked to submit suggestions on how the temple affairs should be managed during the interim period. The plea, filed through advocate Tanvi Dubey on behalf of the temple's management committee, challenges the ordinance which hands over control of the temple to a state-administered trust. On May 15, the Supreme Court had allowed the Uttar Pradesh government's impleadment application and permitted the development of a temple corridor at Vrindavan, using temple funds. That order may now be placed on hold pending further directions. (With inputs form agencies)
Indian Express
7 hours ago
- Indian Express
Banke Bihari temple case: SC questions UP Govt's ‘tearing hurry' over Ordinance, suggests interim committee
The Supreme Court Monday questioned the Uttar Pradesh Government over its Ordinance setting up a trust to manage the Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan, and indicated it would hand over the administration of the religious place to a committee headed by a retired judge. In November 2023, the Allahabad High Court allowed the state to develop a corridor around the holy shrine to enhance facilities for pilgrims, but restrained it from using money from the bank account of the deity for this. On May 15, 2025, in the course of hearing a matter related to the administration and safety of temples in the Braj region, the SC allowed an interlocutory application filed by the state. The top court also allowed the state government to use the temple funds for buying 5 acres of land around it for the corridor project, but directed that the land proposed to be purchased for this 'shall be in the name of the deity/ (temple) trust.' On May 26, the state brought out the Uttar Pradesh Sri Banke Bihari Ji Mandir Nyas Ordinance, 2025, setting up a trust for managing the affairs of the shrine. While presiding over a two-judge bench Monday, Justice Surya Kant asked Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, who appeared for the state, 'What was the tearing hurry for the Ordinance?'. While hearing pleas challenging the May 15 order and the Ordinance, the bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, wondered how that order could have come on an interlocutory application when those managing it currently were not party to the hearing. 'How do you justify the Court's direction when they were not a party?' Justice Kant asked. Nataraj said Banke Bihari was a public temple, and those who had challenged the ordinance and the May 15 order have no locus standi as they are not part of its management. 'These parties are not the management committee. So many people claim, but no recognised management committee is there. These are all unauthorised people,' said ASG Nataraj. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners, countered and said, 'There is a management.' The court pointed out that the matter which led to the May 15 order was not about the Banke Bihari Temple, and 'a public notice could have been issued…'. 'Was there any Court-appointed receiver?. It was not a case of no man's land. Someone had to be heard on behalf of the temple. If the civil judge was monitoring, the civil judge could have been issued notice… Some public notice should have been issued by this Court… that on account of the pending dispute between the warring groups…this is what we are proposing…' said Justice Kant. 'Temple funds will have to be utilised for pilgrims, can't be pocketed by private persons. If the state wanted to carry out any development, what prevented it from doing so as per the law? Whether land is private or not, that issue can be adjudicated by a court. The state is coming in a clandestine manner, not allowing them to be heard. We don't expect this… The state should have informed them, in all fairness,' Justice Kant added. Pointing out that 'providing basic amenities is the state's responsibility', Justice Kant cited the development of the area around the Golden Temple in Amritsar. 'I have said before also, good initiative taken by the state for the area in and around the Golden Temple…that kind of initiative can be there, instead of using legislative power, etc,' said Justice Kant. 'We propose this. Part of the (May 15) judgment, we will keep in abeyance (and), we will have a former high court judge or a senior retired district judge to be management trustee…' the judge added. Justice Kant said the court will nominate the judge for the management committee, and that the collector and other developing authorities will be part of it. He added that the family will continue to perform the rituals at the Banke Bihari Temple. The court also told the petitioners that they should challenge the constitutional validity of the Ordinance before the Allahabad High Court. Justice Kant said the court will ask the former HC-judge-led committee to see how there can be a better management plan for all temples in the area. 'Religious tourism is nowadays one potential source of revenue… When tourists come, look at hotels, restaurants, tea shops… We should encourage good management. Places like Shirdi, Tirupati, all possible facilities are coming there because there are so many religious tourists,' he pointed out. The court also added that it can involve the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), too, in the plan for the holistic development of the area.
