HC admits plea to end caste bar on priests in state-run temples
priests
in govt-administered
temples
.
The petition also challenged the constitutionality of the Hindu Shrine and Religious Places (Management & Regulation) Act, 2019.
The petition, filed by Anusuchit Jati-Janjati Adhikari Karmachari Sangh secretary MC Ahirwar, stated that under the Act, about 350 temples have been identified for administration by the state govt.
"The spiritual department has also formulated a policy for appointment of priests in these temples.
Persons from only Brahmin caste can be appointed priests under the policy. The priest is paid honorarium from the public exchequer," it stated.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel Rameshwar P Singh and Puispendra Shah contended that there were several castes and communities in the Hindu religion, "why only Brahmins should be entitled to become priests in the temples". "A person qualified to be a priest from any caste should be entitled to become a priest," he contended.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
El Arenal: Un segundo ingreso para ecuatorianos: prueba Amazon CFD (Inicia hoy).
Empezar ahora
Registrarse
Undo
Appearing on behalf of the state govt, deputy advocate general Abhijeet Awasthi raised the issue of locus standi of the petitioner to raise the issue. Being an organisation representing a section of employees, he contended, it has no locus standi to file such a petition.
However, the bench of chief justice Suresh Kumar Kait and justice Vivek Jain, after hearing both the sides, issued notices to respondents, including GAD, religious endowment department, social justice department and PWD.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC affirms quashing of FIR against administrator in parliamentarian suicide case
The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the Bombay high court's decision to quash a first information report (FIR) in the abetment to suicide case related to parliamentarian Mohanbhai S Delkar, bringing final relief to nine accused, including Praful Khoda Patel, administrator of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, and Lakshadweep. The Supreme Court confirmed the Bombay high court's September 2022 order. (HT PHOTO) A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran pronounced the judgment. Reading out the operative part of the judgment, Justice Chandran said the top court has confirmed the high court's September 2022 order and dismissed the appeal filed by Delkar's son, Abhinav. The FIR, lodged at Mumbai's Marine Drive police station on March 9, 2021, invoked sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 506 (criminal intimidation), 389 (putting a person in fear of accusation to commit extortion) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, along with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It alleged that Delkar, a prominent tribal leader from the Dhodia Patel community and a seven-term Member of Parliament from Dadra and Nagar Haveli, was subjected to sustained harassment by the local administration to wrest control of an educational institution he ran and to deter him from contesting the next election. Delkar, 58, was found dead on February 22, 2021, in a hotel room on Marine Drive in Mumbai. A suicide note and minutes of a parliamentary privileges committee were recovered from the spot. His son, Abhinav Delkar, recorded a statement that was treated as the FIR. Nine persons, including Patel, were named as accused in the FIR. Quashing the FIR in 2022, the high court held that the allegations, at best, reflected Mohanbhai S Delkar's impressions of humiliation and ill-treatment and were not backed by material showing any specific, proximate acts of instigation or intentional aid, elements necessary to make out abetment under Section 306 IPC. The high court noted material placed by the petitioners to show that Delkar was accorded due protocol at public functions, and found no prima facie instance of harassment rising to the level of a criminal offence. The high court added that it was a fit case for quashing 'to prevent abuse of law.' The high court, while quashing the case, accepted the arguments of the accused that Delkar was never disrespected at public functions and that proper protocols were observed in keeping with his stature. It ruled that the allegations of humiliation and harassment were 'impressions carried out by the deceased' and that the FIR lacked any prima facie evidence of a 'positive act' required to establish abetment under Section 306 of IPC. The nine persons named in the FIR included Praful Patel and some officials and police officers in the Dadra and Nagar Haveli administration. Mohan Delkar, a prominent tribal leader, first entered Parliament in 1989 and represented Dadra and Nagar Haveli six times consecutively until 2009. After a brief interlude, he returned as an Independent lawmaker in 2019, defeating Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)'s Natu Patel by 9,001 votes. His wife represents the constituency in the Lok Sabha, having joined the BJP with their son Abhinav in 2024.
The Wire
29 minutes ago
- The Wire
'Image in the Society Tarnished': HC Declares Arrest of Goa Councillor Over 'Links With PFI' Unlawful
The court added that the power conferred on the police officer necessarily must be discharged with accountability and responsibility. New Delhi: The high court of Bombay at Goa has declared the arrest of an elected councillor of a local body for being an alleged member of the Popular Front of India (PFI) as 'unlawful'. The high court ruled that a mere apprehension that a person may indulge in illegal activities in the future is insufficient ground to justify the arrest under section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), reported Indian Express. Sarfaraz Sayyad, the petitioner in the case, who is a municipal councillor from Valpoi Municipal Council was arrested on September 29, 2022, along with three other people, by the Goa Police who invoked section 151 of CrPC on the premise that he is a member of the PFI. Two days before the arrest of Sayyad, the Union government had declared the PFI and its affiliates as 'Unlawful Association' under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Following the arrest, the court had order their release on a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh each and a surety residing within the local limits of Valpoi police station of Rs 1 lakh. Sayyad had challenged this order. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta said in an order passed on August 11 that the police did not place sufficient material before the magistrate. The police had just stated that the PFI was declared as an Unlawful Association under the UAPA and it was suspected that the members of PFI are likely to indulge in activities, which were likely to disturb the peace in the locality. 'No other specific material was placed before the Magistrate regarding the design or intention to indulge in any cognisable offence, which could not have been prevented unless and until he was arrested. The mere apprehension that the person may indulge in illegal activities in future and there is a possibility of breach of peace in the locality or commission of any cognisable offence, according to us, is not sufficient ground which would justify exercise of this power,' the court said, reported Indian Express. The court added that the power conferred on the police officer necessarily must be discharged with accountability and responsibility. 'We do not find any material in that regard as we have noted that except expressing an apprehension of likelihood of such activity being committed, with no concrete material establishing the link of the petitioner with the PFI or substantially establishing that he has indulged in activities of the Unlawful Association in the past giving rise to an apprehension that he may indulge into the said activities, upon it being declared an Unlawful Association, is conspicuously absent,' said the court. The court added that the petitioner has a right to contend that his image in the society has been tarnished due to his wrongful arrest despite the absence of any incriminating material justifying the arrest under the said provision. 'When we test the aforesaid arrest in the backdrop of Article 21, i.e. 'right to life and liberty', which has considered a right to reputation as a cherished right and an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the term 'life' is of wider amplitude and necessarily convey, life with dignity and involve reputation of a person, with the petitioner being enjoying a position in the society, he definitely has a right to contend that his image in the society has been tarnished on account of the action of his wrongful arrest without sufficiency of the material justifying such an arrest under Section 151 of the CrPC,' the court said. The high court ruled that the arrest of the petitioner is 'liable to be declared as unlawful' and granted him liberty to seek compensation before an appropriate forum. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Advertisement
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Not so much Putin-Trump summit, it's Modi's GST rationalisation promise that is pushing market up: Sunil Subramaniam
Sunil Subramaniam , Market Expert, says the Trump-Putin Peace Summit signals a potential easing of US-Russia relations, benefiting countries like India by reducing the risk of additional sanctions. Even if all agreements aren't met, it won't be seen as a failure of the meeting, as Putin has the authority to make decisions unilaterally. However, a bigger thing for India will be the GST rationalisation that the prime minister announced on August 15. Almost 98% of the items are going to see GST cut and it is likely to be signed before Diwali. Post the joint press conference with Putin, Donald Trump said that many points were agreed to, but a few remain. What could possibly he be hinting at or referring to when he says that a few remain but many were agreed upon? Sunil Subramaniam: I think that it is basically territory driven. Russia has occupied certain key Ukrainian territories and two big things are which territories Putin is willing to give away and what he wants to retain. Otherwise, he said 8 out of 10 areas have been mostly conclusive. In fact, he has rated the meeting 10 on 10 from that perspective. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 15 Most Beautiful Women Ever Today's NYC Undo I am saying this because he was very clear that he was not seeking a solution from this meeting. Even before this meeting he said that yes, the next stage would be for a meeting with Mr Zelenskyy and Russia and the US probably together. From what he wanted to get away with, he has gotten away with that. So, to that extent, the meeting must be described as a success because people were expecting a solution to the war from this, I think that was not even what Mr Trump was expecting. So, these two big things are one thing. But more importantly it indicates an easing of relationship between the US and Russia and that is extremely good news. Let us say that Mr Putin has agreed to certain things and these two are disputable. Now Trump is going to speak to NATO, and get them to agree to Putin's demands. If they do not, Mr Trump can always claim that look I brought a deal to the table, you guys are not accepting, now do what you want. So, this clearly represents that Mr Trump and Putin have agreed on certain things and as an India-based observer and from our country's perspective, Russia and the US getting there is positive for us because additional sanctions could come through if this meeting was a disaster. That is not going to happen. Second, if all things do not go through, it is not a failure of Putin-Trump meeting. It is not Mr Trump's failure. Remember, he is dealing with a leader who has no democracy to go and represent his case to. Mr Putin is the ultimate decision maker. Even if he decides to give up some Russian wins there, nobody is going to object to him. So, he is talking to a person who can conclude a deed, whereas that is not necessarily true in other countries with our democracy. Live Events You Might Also Like: China's $11 trillion stock market is a headache for both Xi and Trump So, to that extent, it is positive from an India perspective that the danger of secondary sanctions is removed there and if things worsen, he may now need to act on China and not put more pressure on India because he has taken the India pressure to the maximum extent already. With respect to the Indian market, FIIs have been on a selling spree leading to a bit of volatility. Is that going to continue? How do you see the Indian market moving forward in the near term? Are we going to be largely insulated due to domestic investor interest? Sunil Subramaniam: Markets will be relatively calm about this news. They do not need to jump up. We have a big thing in India in terms of GST rationalisation that the prime minister announced on August 15 in his independence day speech. The details are to come out and almost 98% of the items are going to see a reduction in GST and it is likely to be signed before Diwali. The markets should react positively on the consumption stocks and the banking related stocks on Monday. So, the markets will be up. How much of it can be attributed to this easing of Trump-Putin relation and how much to the local factors we have to see. I expect the markets to be positive and FII also because they will see this growth in the Indian consumption sector may come in and start buying into FMCG and consumer discretionary stocks. So, the Indian market will respond positively. Not all can be attributed to the Trump-Putin meeting but definitely there are enough wins here. The second point is Pakistan is taking an edge over India in terms of ties with the US and that is what the main problem is. But two things I would like to say here, one is that India is not for sale. We are not willing to give up our Bitcoin just to make up with the president. We are not going to propose his name for a Nobel Prize just because of a deal. We are a nation which is strong on our own. So, there is pride at stake here. We are not going to put all those just to have a good relationship with Mr Trump. You Might Also Like: Measured optimism returns to markets as Trump hints at softening additional tariffs on India Number two is that Mr Trump has not helped that cause by using very damaging language. He called them obnoxious tariff related things. He also called India a dead economy. He is not the most popular person in India right now and India has also taken an iron hand in a velvet glove stance on this. We are not fighting tooth for tooth or throwing insult after insult, but we are staying firm on saying that buying oil from Russia will be based on our economic needs and what our citizens need. So there is going to be a different way that this relationship pans out. So, to that extent, secondary sanctions may ease away. Regarding the 50% tariff on India, I treat the 25% as an economic tariff, the second 25 as a political tariff. The chances of political tariff may ease up in the coming weeks based on how this goes because I do not think Mr Trump is going to be angry with Putin for anything because Putin has said I am looking to end the war. So, to that extent, whatever he wanted to punish India for as a route to make Putin agree to a meeting and do something that has been achieved. He could ease up on the 25% that if announced in the next couple of weeks, will be a huge positive for Indian markets. That is my take on this situation here. The geopolitics does not affect the Indian market so much. The Indian markets react to the Indian impact due to these talks. You Might Also Like: Trump-Putin talk, GST reform and FII action among 9 factors to impact stock markets this week
