Supreme Court refuses to intervene in Madras High Court order on consecration rites in Tiruchendur temple
A Bench headed by Justice P. K. Mishra however allowed the petitioner, R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, the Vidhayahar at the temple, to file a review plea against the High Court order.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had directed the constitution of a committee of experts to decide the timing for conducting the consecration ceremony at the temple.
The petitioner, in the High Court, had argued that he said he had been the Vidhayahar at the temple for the past 13 years.
During temple festivals and other functions he had to fix the timings for their commencement, pujas and celebrations and point out customary and Agamic practices and principles to be adopted according to the nature of the deities and the functions, he had said in the High Court.
He had argued in the High Court that the date (July 7) and the timing fixed for the ceremony were not suitable for the event.
The petitioner had sought a direction to the authorities to follow the ancient texts and literature and declare the consecration ceremony.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
15 minutes ago
- News18
'Admissible As Evidence': SC Sets Aside Ruling On Secretly Recorded Conversation Of Spouse
Last Updated: The Supreme Court on Monday overturned a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that termed recording a wife's phone calls without her consent a violation of privacy. The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, holding that recording a wife's telephonic conversation without her knowledge or consent amounts to a 'clear breach" of her fundamental right of privacy. The High Court had also observed that such recordings cannot be admitted in evidence before a family court. A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma thus held that a secretly recorded telephonic conversation of the spouse is admissible as evidence in matrimonial proceedings. 'Some arguments have been made that permitting such evidence would jeopardise domestic harmony and matrimonial relationships as it would encourage snooping on the spouses, therefore, infringing the objective of section 122 of the Evidence Act." 'We don't think such an argument is tenable. If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them," the bench observed while pronouncing the judgment. The remarks by the top court came after a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision. view comments First Published: July 14, 2025, 11:12 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
16 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court directs Puzhal Central Prison Superintendent to inform respective consulates about detention of foreigners
The Madras High Court has directed the Superintendent of the Central Prison at Puzhal near Chennai to report forthwith the detention of foreigners not only to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) but also to the consulates of their respective countries. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan pointed out that Rule 531 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 2024, requires Superintendents of all prisons to intimate the consulates concerned about the detention of foreigners, without any delay. However, they found that at least in three cases involving the detention of Sri Lankan nationals, the Superintendent of Puzhal Central Prison had neither informed the MEA nor the Sri Lankan Deputy High Commission in Chennai of their detention. It was only after the court took note of the issue, the Superintendent chose to inform the MEA, but it still failed to inform the Deputy High Comission. Since there was a mandatory requirement to do so, the judge ordered that the Superintendent must striclty adhere to Rule 531. The judges recorded the submission of Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak that the Superintendent shall immediately inform the respective consulates about the detention of not only the three writ petitioners C. Nalin Sathuranga, C. Sujanthan, and B. Pushparaj, but also other foreigners. Rule 531 also requires the Superintendent to permit the consulate officials to visit the prisoners, for the purpose of conversing with them and arranging for their legal representation, after obtaining government permission. Therefore, it was absolutely necessary to intimate them about the detention, the judges said. The interim order was passed on writ petitions filed by the three individuals seeking a direction to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, as well as the Superintendent of the Puzhal Central Prison, to arrange for consular visits and permit embassy grievance redressal mechanism. However, on finding that the preliminary requirement of intimating the consulates about the detentions had not been complied with so far, the judges directed the Superintendent to adhere to it forthwith, and report to the court on July 25, 2025.
News18
30 minutes ago
- News18
Prayagraj: SDM Jyoti Maurya's Estranged Husband, A Sanitation Worker, Files Alimony Petition
Alok Maurya filed a first appeal in the Allahabad High Court after the Family Court rejected his alimony plea, seeking delay condonation as the decree wasn't available for 77 days In a new development in the ongoing dispute between Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Jyoti Maurya and her husband Alok Maurya, Alok has filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking alimony from his wife. The High Court has issued a notice to Jyoti Maurya and instructed that a copy of the appeal be sent to her by registered post. The next hearing is scheduled for August 8, 2025. The matter gained public attention when Alok Maurya, a sanitation worker, claimed that his wife Jyoti Maurya, an administrative officer, was having an affair. Alok initially applied for interim alimony in the Family Court of Azamgarh, citing his various illnesses and his minor government post, while his wife holds a senior administrative position. However, his application was rejected on January 4, 2025. Subsequently, Alok Maurya filed a first appeal in the Allahabad High Court against the Family Court's order. The appeal, delayed by 77 days, included a request for condonation of the delay due to the unavailability of the decree. A division bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava heard the matter, ordering notice issuance on both the appeal and the application for delay condonation. The High Court has directed the appellant to submit necessary documents and the process fee for notice service via registered post or speed post. Additionally, the court has requested an English translation of the Family Court's order dated January 4, 2025. First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
