Latest news with #S.Srimathy
The Hindu
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Thiruparankundram hill: Madras High Court judges take differing views, place them before Chief Justice
After two judges of a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court took differing views on petitions pertaining to Tirupparankundram hill, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. A Division Bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy took different views after hearing six petitions, which sought various directions including prevention of animal sacrifice, provision of civic amenities and restoration and maintenance of the hill as a site of national importance. Justice J. Nisha Banu observed it was an admitted fact that the hill housed the ancient Subramaniya Swamy (Murugan) Temple, Sikandar Badusha Dargah and Jain temples. The dispute regarding the rights of the Temple Devasthanam was adjudicated by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, and confirmed by the judgment of the Privy Council, which affirmed that the whole of Tirupparankundram hill, except 33 cents, belong to Lord Murugan. The civil court had not only recognised the rights of both the parties with regard to the places of the worship but also had defined the rights. Since the matter has attained finality during the earlier years of the past century, the court observed it was not inclined to interfere with the same, with a view to preserving interfaith peace and amity, safeguarding secular coexistence and upholding the spirit of religious tolerance and unity among the people. Given that ritualistic animal sacrifices were traditionally performed in several Hindu temples across Madurai region, a blanket prohibition would amount to discriminatory enforcement. Animal sacrifice being an established religious practice was observed not only in the dargah but also in several Hindu temples across the country, and therefore, it could not be selectively banned, the court said. Now, there was no statutory bar against the traditional practice of animal sacrifice at religious places in Tamil Nadu. The dargah was located on the southern side peak of the hill, while the Subramaniya Swamy Temple and the Kasi Viswanathar Temple are situated at different locations. Thus, no religious practices of one community impinge upon the sacred spaces of another, the judge observed and directed the authorities to maintain public peace, harmony and tranquillity. However, Justice S. Srimathy directed that the Tirupparankundram hill should continue to be called as the Tirupparankundram hill and should not be called either Sikkandar Malai or Samanar Kundru. Any quarrying of the hill was prohibited.. The judge observed as far as the animal sacrifice was concerned the claim of the dargah was that the Kandoori was a form of animal sacrifice which was practised for long. If the dargah had followed the practice of Kandoori animal sacrifice there would be some evidence to prove it. The dargah had not produced any evidence. The dargah was directed to approach the civil court to establish the practice of Kandoori animal sacrifice and Ramzan and Bakrid prayers and other Islamic festivals was prevailing prior to the 1920 original suit. However, the dargah was allowed to do the Santhanakodu festival. Since nobody was allowed to Kasi Viswanathar Temple and Sikkandar Dargah after 6 p.m., electricity connection was not necessary. The hill would be damaged if road, drinking water supply and toilet were granted, hence the same should not be granted. However, for drinking water supply, the temple should carry water manually and duly instruct the devotees who visit Kasi Vishwanathar Temple to carry water on their own. Likewise, the dargah should carry water manually and also duly instruct the devotees to carry water on their own. For any construction or renovation work at the dargah, the Managing Trustee should approach the Archaeological Department. The authorities were directed to allow the department to survey the hill, demarcate the protected monuments, the dargah, the temple and note all physical features along with measurements. The exercise should be completed in one year and a report should be submitted to the court, the judge directed. 'In light of the difference of opinion that has arisen on the legal issue, place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders,' the court directed.
The Hindu
24-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Tirupparankundram hill: Judges take differing views on pleas, place them before CJ
After two judges of a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court took differing views on petitions pertaining to Tirupparankundram hill, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. A Division Bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy took different views after hearing six petitions, which sought various directions including prevention of animal sacrifice, provision of civic amenities and restoration and maintenance of the hill as a site of national importance. Justice J. Nisha Banu observed it was an admitted fact that the hill housed the ancient Subramaniya Swamy (Murugan) Temple, Sikandar Badusha Dargah and Jain temples. The dispute regarding the rights of the Temple Devasthanam was adjudicated by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, and confirmed by the judgment of the Privy Council, which affirmed that the whole of Tirupparankundram hill, except 33 cents, belong to Lord Murugan. The civil court had not only recognised the rights of both the parties with regard to the places of the worship but also had defined the rights. Since the matter has attained finality during the earlier years of the past century, the court observed it was not inclined to interfere with the same, with a view to preserving interfaith peace and amity, safeguarding secular coexistence and upholding the spirit of religious tolerance and unity among the people. Given that ritualistic animal sacrifices were traditionally performed in several Hindu temples across Madurai region, a blanket prohibition would amount to discriminatory enforcement. Animal sacrifice being an established religious practice was observed not only in the dargah but also in several Hindu temples across the country, and therefore, it could not be selectively banned, the court said. Now, there was no statutory bar against the traditional practice of animal sacrifice at religious places in Tamil Nadu. The dargah was located on the southern side peak of the hill, while the Subramaniya Swamy Temple and the Kasi Viswanathar Temple are situated at different locations. Thus, no religious practices of one community impinge upon the sacred spaces of another, the judge observed and directed the authorities to maintain public peace, harmony and tranquillity. However, Justice S. Srimathy directed that the Tirupparankundram hill should continue to be called as the Tirupanrankundram hill and should not be called either Sikkandar Malai or Samanar Kundru. Any quarrying of the hill was prohibited.. The judge observed as far as the animal sacrifice was concerned the claim of the dargah was that the Kandoori was a form of animal sacrifice which was practised for long. If the dargah had followed the practice of Kandoori animal sacrifice there would be some evidence to prove it. The dargah had not produced any evidence. The dargah was directed to approach the civil court to establish the practice of Kandoori animal sacrifice and Ramzan and Bakrid prayers and other Islamic festivals was prevailing prior to the 1920 original suit. However, the dargah was allowed to do the Santhanakodu festival. Since nobody was allowed to Kasi Viswanathar Temple and Sikkandar Dargah after 6 p.m., electricity connection was not necessary. The hill would be damaged if road, drinking water supply and toilet were granted, hence the same should not be granted. However, for drinking water supply, the temple should carry water manually and duly instruct the devotees who visit Kasi Vishwanathar Temple to carry water on their own. Likewise, the dargah should carry water manually and also duly instruct the devotees to carry water on their own. For any construction or renovation work at the dargah, the Managing Trustee should approach the Archaeological Department. The authorities were directed to allow the department to survey the hill, demarcate the protected monuments, the dargah, the temple and note all physical features along with measurements. The exercise should be completed in one year and a report should be submitted to the court, the judge directed. 'In light of the difference of opinion that has arisen on the legal issue, place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders,' the court directed.
The Hindu
24-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
HC refuses to interfere in Tiruchendur temple consecration timings fixed by experts in Agama principles
Taking into account that experts in Agama principles have arrived at an opinion with regard to the timings of the consecration of the Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Tiruchendur, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday observed that it was not inclined to interfere with it. A Division Bench of Justices S. Srimathy and R. Vijayakumar said considering that experts in Agama principles arrived at an opinion with regard to the timings of the consecration to be held from 6 a.m. to 6.47 a.m., on July 7, the court was not inclined to interfere in the timings. However, the court made it clear it was constrained to form an expert committee only due to the fact that the Vidhayahar of the temple had given three different Pattolais without mentioning that the first two Pattolais were draft in nature. The court upheld the formation of the expert committee and the timings fixed by them and observed that this should not be taken as a precedent in future. Till a decision is rendered by a civil court, the supremacy of the Vidhayahar in relation to religious matters of the temple has to be protected, the court observed. Therefore, the temple is directed to the earlier procedure of seeking opinion from the Vidhayahar through written communication alone and the Vidhayahar should indicate whether it is draft or final Pattolai while giving opinion and fixing the timing, the court said while disposing of review applications. Meanwhile, a Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete heard a public interest litigation petition filed by A. Viyanarasu of Thoothukudi district who sought a direction to the authorities to conduct the consecration of Tiruchendur temple by using Tamil spiritual mantras and hymns equally. The court directed the petition to be tagged along with other similar petitions.
The Hindu
21-05-2025
- The Hindu
HC restrains authorities from constructing ornamental gateway near Dindigul Rockfort
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday restrained the authorities from constructing a Christian ornamental gateway near the Dindigul Rockfort. A Division Bench of Justices S. Srimathy and R. Vijayakumar issued the direction on the public interest litigation petition filed by V. Senthilvelu of Nagalnagar in Dindigul. The court ordered notice to the authorities and sought a counter affidavit. The matter was posted after four weeks. The petitioner said that the Dindigul Rockfort or Malaikottai was a popular tourist destination. It was built during the reign of the Nayak dynasty and was maintained by the Archaeological Survey of India. Exploring the fort allowed the visitors to delve into the past and gain insight into the historical significance of the area. The fort was also home to temples. However, the place was losing its significance due to encroachments. The pond, Ayyankulam, was not properly maintained and it was filled with debris. As a result, the water could not be used for any purpose, he said. During rainy season, the pond gets filled up. However, encroachments and debris in the pond have resulted in contamination of the water and it could not be used by the people. Though representations were made to the authorities to remove the encroachments around the fort and the pond, no action had been taken by the authorities so far, he said. Instead, the authorities were planning to construct an ornamental gateway near the fort, he said. The petitioner sought a direction to the authorities concerned to remove encroachments and grant permission to worship at the temples. He also sought a direction to restrain the authorities from constructing the ornamental gateway near the Dindigul Rockfort.
The Hindu
21-05-2025
- General
- The Hindu
Experts' panel to decide on timing of Tiruchendur temple consecration: HC
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday directed that a committee comprising experts would decide on the timing for conducting the consecration ceremony of Tiruchendur Subramanya Swamy Temple in Thoothukudi district. A Division Bench of Justices S. Srimathy and R. Vijayakumar issued the direction on a batch of public interest litigation petitions, including the one filed by R. Sivarama Subramaniya Sasthrigal, the Vidhayahar at the temple. The petitioner 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 said. Under these circumstances, the authorities had fixed a date for the Kumbabhishekam (consecration ceremony) of the temple. The authorities without even consulting the petitioner, who was entrusted with the duty of fixing the date and the timing for such an important event as per the Agamic principles, Vedic practices and rituals, fixed them for the consecration, he said. He said the date (July 7) and the timing fixed for the ceremony were not suitable for the event. He sought a direction to the authorities to follow the ancient texts and literature and declare the consecration ceremony.
