No change in Tiruchendur Murugan temple consecration timings: Madras HC
The committee, which consists of five persons who are experts in Agamic principles, had unanimously decided to conduct the ceremony between 6 am and 6.47 am.
Disposing of two review applications filed against the order appointing the committee, a bench comprising justices S Srimathy and R Vijayakumar said the consecration would be conducted at the time chosen by the committee.
However, the bench directed the temple authorities to henceforth follow the earlier procedure of seeking the opinion of the temple's Vidhayahar-authority responsible for choosing auspicious time for festivals, pujas, important events in temples- through written communication. Also, the judges directed the Vidhayahar to indicate in his reply documents or 'pattolai' whether the document is a draft one or it is the final opinion.
The expert committee was appointed following a petition filed by R Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, who is the Vidhayahar of the temple, and the Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil Swathanthira Paribalana Sthalathargal Saba, against 'inauspicious' timing chosen by the authorities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Telephone tapping constitutes a violation of right to privacy: Madras HC
The Madras High Court declared telephone tapping a privacy violation. Justice Venkatesh cited Article 21 of the Constitution. He referenced the Telegraph Act's Section 5(2). The court quashed a Union government order authorizing the tapping of P Kishore's phone. This case involved bribery allegations. The judge noted violations of Telegraph Rules. Intercepted conversations cannot be used as evidence. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Madras High Court on Wednesday held that telephone tapping constitutes a violation of the right to privacy unless justified by a procedure established by law. Justice N Anand Venkatesh also observed that the right to privacy is now an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the judge said section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act authorises interception of telephones on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interests of public safety. Both these contingencies were not secretive conditions or situations. Either of the situations would be apparent to a reasonable laid down in paragraph 28 of the decision of the Apex court in People's Union for Civil Liberties, it was only when the above two situations exist that the authority may pass an order directing interception of messages after recording its satisfaction that it was necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, he a petition filed by P Kishore, Managing Director of Everonn Education Limited, the judge quashed an order of the union government, which authorised tapping of the mobile phone of the petitioner, in connection with a case relating to bribery and corruption, probed by the CBI, involving an Assistant Commissioner of Income judge said in the instant case, the impugned order dated August 12, 2011 does not fall either within the rubric of "public emergency" or "in the interests of public safety" as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties. The facts disclose that it was a covert operation/secretive situation for detection of crime, which would not be apparent to any reasonable the law presently stands, a situation of this nature does not fall within the four corners of Section 5(2) of the Act as expounded by the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties, which has been approved by the Constitution Bench of the SC in K S Puttaswamy case, the judge judge said the authorities have also contravened Rule 419-A(17) of the Telegraph Rules by failing to place the intercepted material before the Review Committee within the stipulated time to examine as to whether the interception was made in compliance with Section 5(2) of the a consequence, the impugned order must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction. Besides violating Article 21, it was also ultra vires Section 5(2) of the Act besides being in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 419-A of the Rules, the judge judge said it follows that the intercepted conversations collected pursuant to the impugned order in violation of Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 419-A(17) of the Rules shall not be used for any purposes judge said it was, however, made clear that the above direction shall have no bearing on the other material that has been collected by the CBI subsequent to and independent of the intercepted call records, which shall be considered by the trial court on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
'Violates Right To Privacy': Madras High Court Quashes MHA's 2011 Phone Tapping Order
Last Updated: The court quashed the phone tapping order, stating it violated the right to privacy as protected under the Constitution The Madras High Court on Wednesday ruled that telephone tapping cannot be carried out as part of covert operations aimed at detecting crime, stating such actions are not permitted under existing law. Justice N Anand Venkatesh said that the law allows phone interception only in cases of public emergency or when public safety is at risk. The ruling came in response to a petition filed by P Kishore, Managing Director of Everonn Education, who was named in a 2011 corruption case by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) along with an Income Tax officer, Andasu Ravinder. According to the CBI, Ravinder demanded a bribe from Kishore, who allegedly paid him Rs 50 lakh. Based on this, the Union Home Ministry issued an order in August 2011 to tap Kishore's mobile phone. Kishore later challenged this order in court. Court Quashes MHA Order The court quashed the phone tapping order, stating it violated the right to privacy as protected under the Constitution, unless authorised under due legal process. The Home Ministry had invoked Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act to justify the interception. However, the court observed that Section 5(2) permits phone tapping only during a public emergency or in the interest of public safety, and only after authorities are satisfied that it is necessary in matters such as national security or public order. 'In this case, the interception was part of a covert operation to detect a crime, which does not fall under the scope of Section 5(2)," the court said. Justice Venkatesh also cited a 1996 Supreme Court judgment in People's Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India, which set guidelines for phone tapping, and the 2017 Puttaswamy verdict, which upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right. The court further noted that Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules was not followed, as the intercepted material was not placed before the review committee in a timely manner. 'As a consequence… the impugned order dated August 12, 2011, must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction," the judge concluded. First Published:
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Madurai city police books seven, including Annamalai, Nainar Nagendran for promoting religious enmity during ‘Murugan Bhakthargal Maanadu'
Under charges of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, E3 Anna Nagar police have registered a case against seven people including BJP Tamil Nadu president Nainar Nagendran and former State BJP president K. Annamalai. Based on the complaint of advocate Vanchinathan that the 'Murugan Bhakthargal Maanadu' which was held recently in Madurai blatantly flouted the directions of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, police booked seven people under various sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Quoting the court's order that the religious event should strictly adhere to matters pertaining faith and religion and should not deviate from the topic, Mr. Vanchinathan noted that the resolutions passed during the event and the topics the speakers spoke were completely political. They spoke about minority religions practiced in India were from foreign countries and also encouraged students to use religious symbols while attending schools, said FIR. The speakers at the event also spoke about the Uttar Pradesh government's bulldozer justice, among others. They were not just off the topic but were also against the secularism principle of the Indian Constitution and the direction of the Madras HC which permitted the event. Based on the complaints of the advocate, police booked Kadeshwara Subramaniyam of Hindu Front, Muthukumar, secretary of State Hindu Front, Bakthan, Vanniyarajan, south Indian RSS leader, Annamalai, Nainar Nagendran and Siravai Aathinam Kumarakurupa Swamy. They were booked under sections 196(1)(a) (promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 299 (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 302 (Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person), 353(1)(b)(statements conducing to public mischief) and 353(2)(punishment of imprisonment up to three years) of BNS.
