Kerala high court seeks report on unauthorised occupants in donor houses at Sabarimala
Kochi: High court has sought reports from the chief police coordinator at Sabarimala and the Pampa station house officer, based on a report submitted by the Sabarimala special commissioner regarding unauthorised occupants in donor houses at Sannidhanam.
The bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and P V Balakrishnan also directed both officials to submit, by Monday, the details of media/media persons and officers from various govt departments who left Sabarimala with the keys to rooms allotted for their stay at Sannidhanam. The court was hearing a petition related to devaswom matters.
Earlier, the Sabarimala special commissioner had submitted a detailed report on the conduct of the annual festival and the 'Meda Masa Puja' at Sabarimala.
The report stated that one of the rooms in the cellar portion of Sabari Guest House was permanently occupied by one Anilkumar on behalf of 'Kumaran Silks', and that the only room in Sivasakthi, DH 5, where tiles were laid, was also in the possession of 'Kumaran Silks'.
The report further noted that some tiles in the Sabari Guest House were broken due to the breaking of coconuts inside the room, and it sought a directive to address the issue.
On Tuesday, the
Travancore Devaswom Board
(TDB) standing counsel informed HC that a report from the executive engineer of the Sabarimala development projects on the issue would be submitted by the next posting date. HC also sought instructions from the state and TDB regarding the disposal of 14 sacks of foreign coins and mutilated currency dumped in the old bhandaram, as highlighted in the special commissioner's report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
HC quashes discharge order of jail warder
1 2 3 Cuttack: Orissa high court quashed the discharge order of a jail warder who was removed from service on allegations of suppressing criminal case details in his attestation form, which was submitted at the time of applying for the post. The vacation bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ruled that the discharge order of P Rajesh Reddy, issued by the senior superintendent of circle jail, Berhampur, on Feb 2, 2024, "is unsustainable in law". Reddy was appointed to the post of jail warder in Daspalla sub-jail on May 29, 2023. The authorities alleged that Reddy failed to disclose his involvement in two criminal cases registered at Chamakhandi police station. While seeking the HC's intervention, Reddy pleaded that he had no knowledge of the cases and was never implicated, detained, or arrested in connection with them. He claimed to be a victim of mistaken identity and stated that his name was wrongfully linked to the cases involving a protest over land acquisition. Upon examining the facts and legal position, Justice Mohapatra, in his May 26 order, ruled that the discharge order violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution and was void from the beginning. The judge further observed that the petitioner (Reddy) did not suppress any material facts within his knowledge, and subsequent investigation showed he was not involved in either case. Setting aside both the discharge order and the subsequent rejection of the petitioner's representation dated July 18, 2024, Justice Mohapatra directed the senior superintendent of circle jail (Berhampur) to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service and financial benefits. "Further, it is directed that the period of discharge be treated as 'on duty' and the financial benefits accruing in favour of the petitioner for the said period be also calculated and disbursed in favour of the petitioner," Justice Mohapatra specified, adding, "Let the entire exercise be carried out within a period of two months. " Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Time of India
13 hours ago
- Time of India
Video proof, priest affidavit now must for marriage certs in UP
Ghaziabad: UP govt has announced significant reforms in its marriage registration policy, mandating video evidence of ceremonies and physical verification of priests. The new directives, issued on Friday following an Allahabad High Court order, said priests must submit notarised affidavits, appear as witnesses on behalf of couples at registration offices and possess a pen drive containing videos of the wedding. Marriage registrars would now accept applications from couples only if one of them is a permanent resident of that particular district. The govt move follows an HC order from May 12, seeking to address a rise in forged certificates and false documents linked to bogus marriages. The court was hearing a writ petition filed by a Greater Noida couple who claimed to have got married in Arya Samaj Mandir in June last year and secured a registration certificate in Ghaziabad. During the hearing, the court found that the certificate lacked the priest's name, the registered address of the Arya Samaj Mandir, and details of witnesses. The couple also did not appear before the local police, but sent a request seeking protection from their families from the post-office located on the HC premises. The HC ordered a probe into widespread irregularities in the state's marriage registration system, particularly in districts like Ghaziabad, Noida and Prayagraj. The scale of the problem became evident when the probe revealed that Ghaziabad alone recorded 29,022 marriages between Aug 2023 and Aug 2024 – nearly 10 times more than other key districts like Prayagraj (2,019), Gorakhpur (2,284), and Varanasi (2,711). More startlingly, smaller districts like Shrawasti and Chitrakoot registered only 51 and 112 marriages, respectively, during the same period. The investigations also revealed that couples from places like Ahmedabad claimed to have solemnised their marriages in Maharashtra, yet obtained registrations in Ghaziabad to secure court protection orders. In these cases, supporting documents such as Aadhaar and PAN cards often turned out to be forged or altered. Other fraudulent practices included certificates issued by non-existent societies, fictitious witnesses, and cases where minors were presented as adult brides. The HC also observed that the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017, offered limited safeguards. For instance, these rules did not require applicants to declare specific customs observed during the wedding, while the digital registration portal provided no means for marriage officers to reject suspicious requests or track those denied. Concerned about widespread exploitation of these gaps, the HC recommended amendments to the 2017 rules. Until then, the measures announced by the govt will stay. "Under the new directives, marriage registration applications will only be accepted from couples if any one present with them is a permanent resident of the district where they are applying. This applies to either the bride, groom, or their parents. Temporary accommodation documents, such as unregistered rent agreements, will no longer be considered valid proof of residence," said Pushpendra Kumar, assistant inspector-general (AIG, stamps), Ghaziabad. In cases where a couple register their marriage without parental consent, the priest who performs the ceremony must be physically present at the time of registration. "They need to submit affidavits with complete details and video evidence," Kumar said. The notification, signed by inspector-genera (stamps) Sameer Verma, allows marriage officials some flexibility if parents or adult family members from both sides are present. "If parents or adult family members of both parties are present and vouch for the marriage, the marriage registration officer may waive the video and priest affidavit requirements, provided they're satisfied with the marriage's authenticity," the notification read. Each registration performed under the new rules would have a special stamp, while the priest's affidavit and related documents would be subject to thorough verification. District offices would have to maintain a separate register containing credentials of the priest, such as their Aadhaar details, phone numbers, and photographs. "We applied the residency rule locally in Ghaziabad back in April in keeping with the high court's interim directions. The other rules will also be implemented with immediate effect," AIG Kumar said. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Indian Express
14 hours ago
- Indian Express
If there was crime, a culpable act, why wasn't it punished, asks V-P Dhankhar
A more than three-decade-old judicial order has rendered the government of the day 'handicapped' and 'provides a virtually impregnable cover' to HC judges against whom an FIR cannot be lodged, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar Friday said. Dhankhar's remarks came on the Justice Yashwant Varma episode during an interaction with a delegation of the Punjab and Haryana HC Bar Association. 'The government of the day is handicapped. It can't register an FIR because there is a judicial order, which is more than three decades old. It provides a virtually impregnable cover. Unless permission is accorded by a functionary at the highest level in the judiciary, an FIR can't be registered… why was that permission not given? That was the minimum that could have been done at the earliest occasion,' Dhankhar said, as per an official statement issued after the interaction. The Centre has reached out to all political parties to build a consensus before bringing a motion of impeachment against Justice Varma during the monsoon session of the Parliament. Dhankhar, however, asked if bringing a motion to remove a judge, is the answer. 'If a crime was committed, a culpable act shaking the foundations of democracy, why wasn't it punished? We have lost more than three months, and the investigation has not even been initiated. Whenever you go to court, they ask why the FIR was delayed,' he said. In an apparent reference to the SC-appointed committee in the mater, he asked, 'Does the committee of judges have a constitutional sanction? Does it have statutory sanction? Can its report result in any outcome? Can the report, by itself, be actionable? The Constitution says mechanism to remove a judge can be initiated either in Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha… this committee cannot substitute for an FIR investigation'. Without naming Justice Varma, he said a 'very painful' incident happened mid-March in Delhi when 'there was a cash haul, obviously tainted, unaccounted, illegal and unexplained' at the residence of a sitting judge. The incident appeared in the public domain after 6-7 days, he said. '… We don't know if it was an isolated incident. Whenever such a cash haul is made, the system has to find out whose money was it. What was the money trail? Are big sharks (involved)? Did the money influence judicial work?'
