Scheduled Caste people offer prayers at Uthapuram temple
A minor tension prevailed at Uthapuram on Wednesday afternoon as people administering the Muthalamman temple objected to Scheduled Caste people making goat sacrifice and pongal on the temple premises.
Revenue and police officials who were present there prevented 'practice of any new rituals' without the consent of the Pillaimars, who are the administrators of the temple. 'The High Court has directed the district administration not to prevent the Pillaimars from administering the temple in any manner,' a senior police officer pointed out.
Following the court direction, the two-day festival at the temple went off smoothly with people from both sides offering worship in the temple since Tuesday.
The Pillaimars performed goat sacrifice and also made pongal. They also took out mulaipari procession in the afternoon.
'Only when the Scheduled Caste people came for the goat sacrifice and making pongal, the Pillaimars objected to it and as a precautionary measure to maintain law and order situation, the worship was stopped later in the day after the festival got over,' the police officer said.
Revenue and police officials were holding talks with both sides late into the night.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Sri Muthalamman, Sri Mariamman temple be opened to the public, irrespective of caste, community, or place of residence.
A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and R. Poornima observed that the worship of the deity inside the temple shall be opened to all without any restrictions.
The court directed that the district administration shall not prevent Vellalar (Pillaimar) Uravinmurai and the community members from administering the temple in any manner.
The Peepal tree inside the temple shall not be disturbed in any manner for any reason. No person shall touch the tree, whether in connection with worship or for any other act, whether religious or non-religious, the court directed.
Further, the court directed the Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to initiate suo motu proceedings under Section 63 (e) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which empowers the authorities to decide on the customs or established usage of the religious institution, specifically concerning the form of worship of the Peepal tree.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Cash-at-home row: Over 100 MPs sign motion to impeach Justice Yashwant Varma
With one day to go for the commencement of the Parliament's Monsoon Session, Union Minister Kiren Rijiju on Sunday said over 100 MPs have already signed a notice to bring a motion in the House for the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma, crossing the required number of signatories. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Rijiju, who was addressing the media after an all-party meeting, said, 'the signature is underway and it has crossed 100 already,' and that the Business Advisory Committee, an all-party group that decides the agenda of the Session, will decide when the motion will be moved. A motion for the impeachment of a judge has to be signed by at least Lok Sabha 100 MPs and 50 in the Rajya Sabha, as per the Article 124 of the Constitution. Once an impeachment is adopted by either House, a three-member committee is set up by the Speaker, which will comprise the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, who will head it, and including a Chief Justice of any High Court, and a person who is a 'distinguished jurist'. The government said it will bring the motion during the Monsoon Session and has received support from different parties, including the opposition, in this move against 'corruption in judiciary'. Rijiju refused to comment on when the matter will be taken up in the parliamentary session until the matter is passed by the BAC with the Chair's approval. Formerly serving in the Delhi High Court, Justice Yashwant Varma has been at the centre of controversy since March 14, when fire personnel discovered wads of half-burnt cash at his official residence in the national capital after a fire broke out there. The then-CJI Sanjeev Khanna constituted a three-member committee of High Court judges to investigate the matter, and on March 20, the SC Collegium proposed that Justice Varma be transferred to the Allahabad High Court. Following the submission of the committee's 64-page report on May 4 — which found credence in the allegation of cash being found at his official residence — CJI Khanna sought Varma's resignation, which the High Court judge refused. Khanna then forwarded the report, along with Justice Varma's reply, to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Khanna reportedly recommended to the President to initiate the process to remove Varma. Varma has been kept off judicial work since his transfer to the Allahabad High Court. Protesting the allegations, he has moved the top court against the committee's findings, saying that mere recovery of cash does not establish his culpability.
NDTV
5 hours ago
- NDTV
Kerala High Court Bans Use Of AI Tools In Judicial Decision-Making
Kochi: In a landmark move, the Kerala High Court has come out with an Artificial Intelligence (AI) usage policy which specifically prohibits usage of such tools for decision making or legal reasoning by the district judiciary. The High Court has come out with the 'Policy Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary' for a responsible and restricted use of AI in judicial functions of the district judiciary of the state in view of the increasing availability of and access to such software tools. According to court sources, it is a first-of-its-kind policy. It has advised the district judiciary to "exercise extreme caution" as "indiscriminate use of AI tools might result in negative consequences, including violation of privacy rights, data security risks and erosion of trust in the judicial decision making". "The objectives are to ensure that AI tools are used only in a responsible manner, solely as an assistive tool, and strictly for specifically allowed purposes. The policy aims to ensure that under no circumstances AI tools are used as a substitute for decision making or legal reasoning," the policy document said. The policy also aims to help members of the judiciary and staff to comply with their ethical and legal obligations, particularly in terms of ensuring human supervision, transparency, fairness, confidentiality and accountability at all stages of judicial decision making. "Any violation of this policy may result in disciplinary action, and rules pertaining to disciplinary proceedings shall prevail," the policy document issued on July 19 said. The new guidelines are applicable to members of the district judiciary in the state, the staff assisting them and also any interns or law clerks working with them in Kerala. "The policy covers all kinds of AI tools, including, but not limited to, generative AI tools, and databases that use AI to provide access to diverse resources, including case laws and statutes," the document said. Generative AI examples include ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot and Deepseek, it said. It also said that the new guidelines apply to all circumstances wherein AI tools are used to perform or assist in the performance of judicial work, irrespective of location and time of use and whether they are used on personal, court-owned or third party devices. The policy directs that usage of AI tools for official purposes adhere to the principles of transparency, fairness, accountability and protection of confidentiality, avoid use of cloud-based services -- except for the approved AI tools, meticulous verification of the results, including translations, generated by such software and all time human supervision of their usage. "AI tools shall not be used to arrive at any findings, reliefs, order or judgement under any circumstances, as the responsibility for the content and integrity of the judicial order, judgement or any part thereof lies fully with the judges," it said. It further directs that courts shall maintain a detailed audit of all instances wherein AI tools are used. "The records in this regard shall include the tools used and the human verification process adopted," it said. Participating in training programmes on the ethical, legal, technical and practical aspects of AI and reporting any errors or issues noticed in the output generated by any of the approved AI tools, are the other guidelines mentioned in the policy document. The High Court has requested all District Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates to communicate the policy document to all judicial officers and the staff members under their jurisdiction and take necessary steps to ensure its strict compliance.
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
AI tools not for decision making: Kerala HC guidelines to district judiciary on AI usage
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills In a landmark move, the Kerala High Court has come out with an Artificial Intelligence (AI) usage policy which specifically prohibits usage of such tools for decision making or legal reasoning by the district judiciary The High Court has come out with the 'Policy Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary' for a responsible and restricted use of AI in judicial functions of the district judiciary of the state in view of the increasing availability of and access to such software to court sources, it is a first-of-its-kind has advised the district judiciary to "exercise extreme caution" as "indiscriminate use of AI tools might result in negative consequences, including violation of privacy rights, data security risks and erosion of trust in the judicial decision making"."The objectives are to ensure that AI tools are used only in a responsible manner, solely as an assistive tool, and strictly for specifically allowed purposes. The policy aims to ensure that under no circumstances AI tools are used as a substitute for decision making or legal reasoning," the policy document policy also aims to help members of the judiciary and staff to comply with their ethical and legal obligations, particularly in terms of ensuring human supervision, transparency, fairness, confidentiality and accountability at all stages of judicial decision making."Any violation of this policy may result in disciplinary action, and rules pertaining to disciplinary proceedings shall prevail," the policy document issued on July 19 new guidelines are applicable to members of the district judiciary in the state, the staff assisting them and also any interns or law clerks working with them in Kerala."The policy covers all kinds of AI tools, including, but not limited to, generative AI tools, and databases that use AI to provide access to diverse resources, including case laws and statutes," the document AI examples include ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot and Deepseek , it also said that the new guidelines apply to all circumstances wherein AI tools are used to perform or assist in the performance of judicial work, irrespective of location and time of use and whether they are used on personal, court-owned or third party policy directs that usage of AI tools for official purposes adhere to the principles of transparency, fairness, accountability and protection of confidentiality, avoid use of cloud-based services -- except for the approved AI tools, meticulous verification of the results, including translations, generated by such software and all time human supervision of their usage."AI tools shall not be used to arrive at any findings, reliefs, order or judgement under any circumstances, as the responsibility for the content and integrity of the judicial order, judgement or any part thereof lies fully with the judges," it further directs that courts shall maintain a detailed audit of all instances wherein AI tools are used."The records in this regard shall include the tools used and the human verification process adopted," it in training programmes on the ethical, legal, technical and practical aspects of AI and reporting any errors or issues noticed in the output generated by any of the approved AI tools, are the other guidelines mentioned in the policy High Court has requested all District Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates to communicate the policy document to all judicial officers and the staff members under their jurisdiction and take necessary steps to ensure its strict compliance.
