HC notice to SJTA chief over Puri temple ritual
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The petitioners, who claim to be patara bishoyi sevaks and direct descendants of the original Record of Rights (ROR) holders, argued that the June 12, 2025 order issued by the chief administrator permitting two non-descendants to perform the patabola seva was 'arbitrary and unlawful'.
Through their counsel advocate Avijit Patnaik, the petitioners contended that the patabola seva is a sacred and confidential religious duty, the knowledge of which is passed down exclusively through hereditary lines.
They alleged that including outsiders not recorded as sevaks in the ROR violates Section 21(2)(1) of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955.
The service is not only religious but carries deep cultural and traditional significance, known only to those who have inherited it through generations, advocate Patnaik argued.
While hearing the matter, Justice R K Pattanaik said, "Considering the facts pleaded on record and the plea advanced by the petitioners, the court is inclined to have the response of Shree Jagannath Temple Administration in particular."
The court directed the SJTA to file its reply and listed the matter for further hearing on June 25.
In an interim order, Justice Pattanaik also directed the temple administration to consider excluding the two newly appointed individuals from participating in the ongoing patabola seva, ensuring that the service continues undisrupted in the meantime.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Kolhapur circuit bench inaugurated, CJI hints at permanent division bench
MUMBAI: Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai on Sunday inaugurated the Bombay High Court's new circuit bench in Kolhapur district, calling it a step towards 'cost-effective and time-bound justice' for litigants from south Maharashtra and the adjoining regions of Goa and Karnataka. Kolhapur circuit bench inaugurated, CJI hints at permanent division bench The new bench will be functional from today (August 18), with jurisdiction over six districts—Kolhapur, Satara, Sangli, Solapur, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg. It will consist of a division bench comprising justices MS Karnik and Sharmila Deshmukh, and two single benches of justices SG Dige and SG Chapalgaonkar. The division bench will hear matters, including public interest litigations, civil writs, appeals and criminal cases, while the single benches will separately handle criminal and civil matters. CJI Gavai said he had long supported the demand for a bench in Kolhapur, first voicing his backing at a legal education camp in Sindhudurg. 'Before my eyes are the thousands of people from our borders with Karnataka and Goa who are litigants before the Bombay High Court. This step is for cost-effective and time-bound justice,' he said. The CJI also linked the move to the ideals of Dr B R Ambedkar and Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj. 'Dr Ambedkar had received a scholarship from Shahuji Maharaj for his studies in England and ₹3,000 to establish Mooknayak. Shahuji always stood by the Dalits, promoted education, and supported their businesses. I have been deeply influenced by his fight against caste oppression,' Justice Gavai said. Reiterating that the Kolhapur bench should eventually be elevated to a permanent division bench, CJI Gavai urged Bombay High Court Chief Justice Alok Aradhe to send a proposal soon. 'I still have more than three months left as CJI, and that is not a small period. Justice Aradhe can send the proposal and I will be in a position to approve it,' he said. Chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, who was present along with deputy CM Eknath Shinde, recalled that Justice Gavai had earlier described Kolhapur's demand for a bench as justified. 'If there is any right for the HC bench of Kolhapur, Justice Gavai has mentioned it,' said Fadnavis. Justice Gavai also acknowledged other demands, including for a hostel for young lawyers from the six districts who will now practice in Kolhapur. He praised the Public Works Department for swiftly constructing a court building 'true to Maratha architecture' to house the new bench. On the oft-repeated demand for a bench in Pune, however, the CJI was cautious. 'The demand is due to Pune's growing advocates wanting more work. We must think about litigants also and not only advocates,' he said, adding that a similar scepticism had once surrounded the Aurangabad bench, which has since proven itself. The Bombay High Court currently has benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar) and Goa, apart from its principal seat in Mumbai. The Kolhapur circuit bench will be its fifth.
Indian Express
9 hours ago
- Indian Express
Denial of admission to private unaided school not a violation of right to education: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that denial of admission to a private unaided school will not violate the right to education under the Constitution. Article 21A of the Constitution, introduced by the 86th Amendment in 2002, guarantees free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 years. In this case, the petitioner approached the high court seeking an order to admit his son to St Paul's High School in Belagavi as a lower kindergarten student. He said they had received a communication stating that his son had been selected for admission as a student, and they would have to come to meet the principal on February 28. The website then changed the status to 'verification pending'. The school later informed the petitioner that the confirmation of admission had been erroneously sent to him along with 61 other students owing to a software issue and that the sanctioned number of students, 150, had already been admitted. The petitioner argued that the child ought to be admitted owing to the initial communication. The school's counsel argued that the petition could not be maintained since it was a private, unaided institution. The petitioner's counsel, on the other hand, relied on a prior Delhi High Court judgment to argue that, since education is a matter with public scope, the court's jurisdiction did extend to it. The order, passed on August 5 by a bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, stated that in the case of fundamental rights being affected, the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be applied even if the school was a private entity. However, the court did not agree that said rights had actually been violated in this case. The court noted, 'There is no specific allegation in the petition regarding any discrimination or the like which would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, nor is any such allegation made as regards the violation of fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, though a reference is made that non-grant of admission would deprive the petitioners of their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the mere non-admission of petitioner No.2 (the student) in respondent No.3 school would not amount to a violation of Article 21.' The court pointed out that there were many other schools where the child could be admitted. Having made these observations, the court dismissed the petition.
The Hindu
12 hours ago
- The Hindu
Constitutional validity does not mean desirability, ex-CJI Khanna tells one nation, one election panel
Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has told a parliamentary committee scrutinising the simultaneous election Bill that the constitutional validity of a proposal in no way amounts to a pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of its provisions. In his written opinion to the committee, Justice Khanna, however, said arguments related to the dilution of the country's federal structure might be raised about the constitutional amendment Bill, as he listed the various claims made supporting and criticising the concept, sources said. Most of the experts, who have shared their views with the committee headed by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary, have rejected the charge that the proposals are unconstitutional but have flagged some issues with the current provisions of the Bill. Justice Khanna, who is scheduled to interact with the committee on Tuesday (August 19, 2025), has joined a few other former CJIs in raising concerns over the extent of power given to the Election Commission (EC) in the Bill. He said the Bill conferred "unfettered discretion" on the EC in deciding that an Assembly poll could not be conducted along with that of the Lok Sabha, and to make a recommendation to the President on these lines, the sources said. "This clause will be open to question as violating and offending the basic structure of the Constitution on the ground of being arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the Constitution," he is learnt to have said. Article 14 deals with equality before law. Indirect President's rule Justice Khanna added, "Postponement of elections by the EC may result in indirect President's rule, in other words, the Union government taking over the reins of the State government. This will be questionable judicially, as violating the federal structure envisaged by the Constitution." Commenting on various arguments related to the Bill, he said the fact that simultaneous elections were held in 1951-52, 1957, 1962 and 1967, was a "coincidence", certainly not an express or not even an implied constitutional mandate. Justice Khanna said there was a difference between "merit review" and "judicial review". When the Supreme Court or High Courts uphold constitutional validity, it was a mere affirmation of the legislative power and that the amendment or the provision was not violative of the constitutional limitations, he said. "The court decisions in no way amount to pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of such provisions," he added. Before Justice Khanna, former CJIs D.Y. Chandrachud, J.S. Khehar, U.U. Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi have interacted with the committee members on various provisions of what is often referred to as "one nation one election" Bill. The BJP and its allies have supported the Bill, asserting that it will boost growth by cutting down on expenditure caused by the relentless poll cycle, leading to frequent deployment of security and civil officials on poll duty and the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct. The Opposition has argued that it undermines democratic principles and weakens federal structure.
