Chennai: Madras high court on Tuesday said it would not stall kumbhabhishekam and balalayam of temples, as these responsibilities had already been entrusted with a court-appointed committee of experts.
Taking exception to a PIL-petitioner who keeps sending e-mails to temple officials complaining about various amenities at Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple at Srirangam, the first bench of acting Chief Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh and Justice R Mahadevan asked him to approach the committee if he had any issues.
The petitioner, Rangarajan Narasimhan, was before the court for a direction to the authorities to remove barricades in the second prakaram of Sri Ranaganathaswamy temple, in Srirangam, Trichy. During the earlier hearings, the intemperate language used by the executive officer, as well as the petitioner, in their e-mail exchanges had caught the eye of the first bench which admonished both sides.
On Tuesday, additional advocate-general of Tamil Nadu, Venkatramani, told the bench that Rangarajan Narasimhan was interfering with the day-to-day administration of the temple and even on Monday he had acted in a manner which would hinder temple administration.
As for the issue of barricades at the second prakaram, Venkataramani said it was a crowd management measure and authorities had to block it as presence of a large number of devotees would result in stampede. It was an administrative decision taken to prevent law and order problems, he said.
The bench then asked the PIL-petitioner as to why he was not approaching the committee which had already been constituted. It then posted the matter to March 20 for further hearing, and directed him to give representation with regard to second prakaram, to the committee.
It was Rangarajan Narasimhan’s contention that pradakshina of the second prakaram was considered a holy convention and indispensable to religious beliefs of Hindus. This religious requirement of pradakshinam of the second prakaram was prevented by authorities for no reason, he said. Because of this devotees ended up doing ‘apradakshinam’ which was not good for the devotees or for the temple, he said.
High court formed a committee after the issue of damage being caused to ancient temples in the name of conservation and renovation, was brought to the notice of the court. Though originally all works had been put on hold till the committee submits its reports, it was later clarified stating that urgent repair works necessary for the upkeep and safety of the structure could be taken up.