Relief for Nityananda: HC dismisses petitions

May 10, 2012

nityananda


Madurai, May 10: Amid the controversy over appointment of self-styled godman Nityananda as head of the Madurai Adheenam, the Madras High Court today dismised a PIL seeking a direction to the government to take over the ancient Saivite Mutt.

The Madurai Bench of the Court also dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a disciple of the Dharmapura Adheenam seeking to produce the pontiff of Madurai Adheenam, Arunagirinatha Gnanasambanda Desika Paramacharya Swami, in person.

Dismissing the pleas,the Bench comprising Justices M Sathya Narayanan and D Hariparanthanam said the petitioners should approach the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment department under provisions of the HR and CE act and the High Court was not competent to handle the issue at this stage.

The Court said as the matter involved appointment of Nityananda as the successor, it was a matter to be decided by the HR and CE (Joint Commissioner) court or civil court.

Meanwhile, counsel for M Solaikannan, Hindu People's Party leader who filed the PIL, sought a special leave petition for appealing against the Court order to the Supreme Court. The counsel also said he would file a civil suit.

In his petition, Solaikannan alleged that the recent appointment of Nityananda, who is facing criminal charges, including rape, as the 293rd pontiff of Madurai Aadheenam (Mutt), was made without following rules and rituals established by tradition.

The appointment had not been ratified by other Saivite mutts. The present mutt head had been administered some drug and he had agreed to make Nityananda as the Mutt head only under the influence of drugs, the petitioner alleged.

The Habeas Corpus Petition filed by one T Gurusamy Desikar, sought a direction to police to produce the mutt head Arunagirinatha Gnanasambanda Desika Paramacharya Swami, in person and set him free from 'illegal custody' of Nityananda.

However, the Mutt head has said he was not under the control of any person, including Nityananda.

Nityananda's appointment as the head of the 1500 year-old Saivite Mutt here, has triggered a controversy. Many religious leaders and political outfits have protested the appointment.

The self-styled godman had landed in controversy after a video footage purportedly showing him in a compromising position with an actress was telecast by local TV channels in March 2010. He was arrested on April 21 from Solan in Himachal Pradesh and granted bail on June 11 the same year by the Karnataka High Court

Meanwhile, Arunagirinatha Gnanasambanda Desika Paramacharya Swami said there was no going back on his decision to have Nityananda as his successor.

"Once enthroned as junior pontiff, he cannot be dethroned", he told reporters here.

Nityananda was an erudite scholar with proficiency in English and Tamil and the Saiva Siddhantha,he said.

He claimed that he had sought the help of Dharumapura Adheenam and Kanchi Sankaracharya to appoint a successor,but both did not have time to find one.

Referring to the Kanchi Seer Jayendra Saraswathi's statement that Nityananda's appointment was in violation of spiritual and religious traditions, he said he could not blame the Sankaracharya as someone would have misled him.

Nityananda,who was also present at the press meet, said there were mutt heads who supported him.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
June 7,2020

New Delhi, Jun 7: A day after India and China military commanders held "cordial and positive" talks at Chushul-Moldo point along the Line of Actual Control in Eastern Ladakh, Ministry of External Affairs said the two countries have agreed to "peacefully" resolve the situation in the border areas by continuing the military and diplomatic engagements.

The Indian delegation led by 14 Corps Commander Lt Gen Harinder Singh on Saturday met his Chinese equivalent Maj Gen Liu Lin, who is the commander of South Xinjiang Military Region of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, to address the ongoing tussle in Eastern Ladakh.

In a statement on Sunday, the MEA said that the meeting between the Corps Commander based in Leh and the Chinese Commander took place in a "cordial and positive atmosphere".

"Both sides agreed to peacefully resolve the situation in the border areas in accordance with various bilateral agreements and keeping in view the agreement between the leaders that peace and tranquillity in the India-China border regions is essential for the overall development of bilateral relations," the statement read.

They also noted that this year marked the 70th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries and agreed that an early resolution would contribute to the further development of the relationship.

"Accordingly, the two sides will continue the military and diplomatic engagements to resolve the situation and to ensure peace and tranquillity in the border areas," it further read.

China has moved its troops along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Eastern Ladakh areas including the Finger area, Pangong Tso Lake, and Galwan Nala area.

The meeting between military commanders was to discuss and resolve the stand-off in Eastern Ladakh.

Following the meeting, the Army Headquarters' Directorate General of Military Operations also briefed the Ministry of External Affairs and other concerned government officials about the discussions.

On Friday, officials of India and China interacted through video-conferencing with the two sides agreeing that they should handle "their differences through peaceful discussion" while respecting each other's sensitivities and concerns and not allowing them to become disputes in accordance with the guidance provided by the leadership.

In the last few days, there has not been any major movement of the PLA troops at the multiple sites where it has stationed itself along the LAC opposite Indian forces.

The Chinese Army's intent to carry out deeper incursions was checked by the Indian security forces by quick deployment.

The Chinese have also brought in heavy vehicles with artillery guns and infantry combat vehicles in their rear positions close to the Indian territory.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 31,2020

New Delhi, Mar 31: The total number of coronavirus cases in India has risen to 1,397 after 146 new patients were reported in the last 24-hours, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare said on Tuesday.

Of this little less than 1,400 cases, there are 1,238 active while 124 cured. The total figure also includes 35 fatalities.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com web desk
June 16,2020

New Delhi, Jun 16: Despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi led government’s attempt to downplay the border dispute with China, matters have heated up unprecedentedly along the Line of Actual Control (LAC)- the effective Sino-India border in Eastern Ladakh. 

The country has lost three precious lives – an army officer and two soldiers. The last time blood was spilled on the LAC, before the latest episode, was 45 years ago when the Chinese ambushed an Assam Rifles patrol in Tulung La.

India had lost four soldiers on October 20, 1975 in Tulung La, the last time bullets were fired on the India-China border though both the countries witnessed bitter stand-offs later at Sumdorong Chu valley in 1987, Depsang in 2013, Chumar in 2014 and Doklam in 2017.

Between 1962 and 1975, the biggest clash between India and China took place in Nathu La pass in 1967 when reports suggest that around 80 Indian soldiers were killed and many more Chinese personnel.

While three soldiers, including a Commanding Officer, were killed in the latest episode in Galwan Valley, the government describes it as a "violent clash" and does not mention opening fire.

New Delhi described the locality where the 1975 incident took place as "well within" its territory only to be rebuffed by Beijing as "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong".

The Ministry of External Affairs had then said that the Chinese had crossed the LAC and ambushed the soldiers while Beijing claimed the Indians entered their territory and did not return despite warnings.

The Indian government maintained that the ambush on the Assam Rifles' patrol in 1975 took place "500 metres south of Tulung" on the border between India and Tibet and "therefore in Indian territory". It said Chinese soldiers "penetrating" Indian territory implied a "change in China's position" on the border question but the Chinese denied this and blamed India for the incident.

The US diplomatic cables quoted an Indian military intelligence officer saying that the Chinese had erected stone walls on the Indian side of Tulung La and from these positions fired several hundred rounds at the Indian patrol.

"Four of the Indians had gone into a leading position while two (the ones who escaped) remained behind. The senior military intelligence officer emphasised that the soldiers on the Indian patrol were from the area and had patrolled that same region many times before," the cable said.

One of the US cables showed that former US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger sought details of the October 1975 clash "without approaching the host governments on actual location of October 20 incident". He also wanted to know what ground rules were followed regarding the proximity of LAC by border patrols.

A cable sent from the US mission in India on November 4, 1975 appeared to have doubts about the Chinese account saying it was "highly defensive".

"Given the unsettled situation on the sub-continent, particularly in Bangladesh, both Chinese and Indian authorities have authorised stepped up patrols along the disputed border. The clash may well have ensued when two such patrols unexpectedly encountered each other," it said.

Another cable from China on the same day quoted another October 1974 cable, which spoke about Chinese officials being concerned for long that "some hotheaded person on the PRC (People's Republic of China) might provoke an incident that could lead to renewed Sino-Indian hostilities. It went on to say that this clash suggested that "such concerns and apprehensions are not unwarranted".

According to the United States diplomatic cables, Chinese Foreign Ministry on November 3, 1975 disputed the statement of the MEA spokesperson, who said the incident took place inside Indian territory.

The Chinese had said "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong". In its version of the 1975 incident, they said Indian troops crossed the LAC at 1:30 PM at Tulung Pass on the Eastern Sector and "intruded" into their territory when personnel at the Civilian Checkpost at Chuna in Tibet warned them to withdraw.

Ignoring this, they claimed, Indian soldiers made "continual provocation and even opened fire at the Chinese civilian checkpost personnel, posing a grave threat to the life of the latter. The Chinese civilian checkpost personnel were obliged to fire back in self defence."

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson had also said they told the Indian side that they could collect the bodies "anytime" and on October 28, collected the bodies, weapons and ammunition and "signed a receipt".

The US cables from the then USSR suggested that the official media carried reports from Delhi on the October 1975 incident and they cited only Indian accounts of the incident "ridiculing alleged Chinese claims that the Indians crossed the line and opened fire first".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.