Should Temples continue to be under the thumb of Govt, asks High Court

Observing that thousands of temples are facing utter neglect, the High Court of Madras has asked if temples should continue to be under the thumb of the Govt.

Justice G R Swaminathan observed, "Should not the government professing to be secular treat all religious institutions equally? Are not knowledgeable & committed activists like T R Ramesh justified in arguing that the government should exercise the same degree & level of control over temples as are exercised over churches & mosques?"

Tamil Nadu is a land of temples & they have played a central role in our culture. However, their current condition leaves a lot to be desired. Land endowed for their maintenance has been gobbled up by private interests. Antique idols have been stolen & smuggled overseas. The temple staff are paid a pittance. Even pujas are not being performed. Much needs to be done to revive their glory, observed the judge.

The Judge made the observations while quashing 2 FIRs registered against activist Rangarajan Narasimhan for making highly defamatory allegations in the social media against the management of Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple at Srirangam in Trichy district. The cases were registered based on the complaint of the executive officer of the temple.

The Judge said that the petitioner had been training his guns on Venu Srinivasan, who was the chairman of the board of trustees of the temple. Venu Srinivasan is a recipient of Padma Bhushan, one of the highest civilian honours. His philanthropic & charitable activities are well known. He has spent his time, money & energy for the restoration of a number of temples & his. His work of renovation & conservation of Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple was commended by Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu.The petitioner is not only a passionate devotee but also an activist. His bona fides are beyond question. But the way he goes about at times could make one feel uncomfortable, the Judge said.

 

Justice Swaminathan observed, "I feel like telling the petitioner that the level of discourse or debate must always conform to the highest standards of civility. There can be no place for force or violence even in the slightest degree. Of course, I am not here to dish out sermons to the petitioner. I am no Prashant Kishor. The petitioner has not come to me for consultation. He has come seeking adjudication & I better confine my role to that".

The judge said that an FIR could not be registered for the offence under Section 500 of the IPC. Section 45 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, provides only a civil remedy & is not a penal provision. Since the petitioner has not pitted one group against the other on the grounds set out in the provision, the ingredients of Section 505(2) of IPC are also absent. Allowing the prosecution to continue would only be an abuse of legal process, observed the judge while quashing both the FIRs registered against the petitioner.

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure