Stay away from Puttur temple festivities: High Court tells AB Ibrahim

[email protected] (CD Network)
March 31, 2016

Bengaluru, Mar 30: The Karnataka High Court today directed the state government to reprint the invitation card for a festival at Puttur temple after it admitted the error of printing the name of Dakshina Kannada Deputy Commissioner A B Ibrahims name, in violation of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

abibrahimA division bench, comprising Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Justice Ravi Malimath, passed the order, saying that "in order to avoid any controversy and confusion between the devotees and the Deputy Commissioner, the court directs the government to reprint the invitation of the annual festival."

The bench said that as per Section seven of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, a non-Hindu cannot participate in any such function or event.

"Ibrahim is a non-Hindu and he practises a religion which does not allow idol worship," it added." The court also directs Ibrahim not to participate in any such event in future," the bench said.

A group of devotees of Puttur Mahalingeshwara temple, who had filed the petition, had pointed out that the inclusion of the name of Ibrahim was against the Endowment Act of the government.

Contrary to the earlier stand of defending inclusion of Ibrahim's name in the invitation card, the government admitted its error of doing so before the division bench.

Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister T B Jayachandra had defended the government's stand by saying that Ibrahim has done nothing wrong and acted in his capacity as the Deputy Commissioner as per the Muzrai Department's rules.

The controversy had created political ripples when Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal raised objections over the inclusion of Ibrahim's name in the invitation card.

The 10-day festival is held from April 17 every year in the temple at Puttur, 52 km from Manguluru, in which thousands of devotees from various parts of the state, participate.

Printing DC's name on invite was a mistake'

The State government told the High Court that it was a “mistake” to print the name of A.B. Ibrahim, on the invitation card of the annual festival of Puttur Mahalingeshwara temple.

Advocate-General Madhusudan R. Naik made this submission during the hearing on a PIL petition, filed by Mahathobara Sri Mahalingeshwara Devara Bhaktha Samiti, Puttur.

Also, the Advocate-General told a Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Justice Ravi Malimath, that “the DC concerned [Mr. Ibrahim] will not participate in any religious function of this particular temple.”

The petitioner had complained that Mr. Ibrahim's name was printed in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act 1997, which makes it mandatory that only officers professing Hindu faith could be given charge of Hindu religious institutions.

Comments

Fair talker
 - 
Thursday, 31 Mar 2016

For a silly matter, was it necessary to make such a big issue until knocking HC door.

Our people don't hesitate to waste time, efforts, resources.

when controversy was started the DC himself should have initiated to exclude his name.
Very unfortunate, such a silly matter can not be solved without HC intervention.

shabeer
 - 
Thursday, 31 Mar 2016

Allah Saved DC from sin.....

Ahmed
 - 
Thursday, 31 Mar 2016

Good decision by Honorable court. Court recognizes that DC is practicing a religion which does not allow idol worship and can not take part in Temple activities. Same way we should admit that we cannot even chant \Jai Mata Di\", or \"Jai Bharat Mata\" because it is idol praising. But, we have no problem in chanting Hindustan Zindabad, Bharath Ki Jai etc.,"

Shaan
 - 
Thursday, 31 Mar 2016

Good decision of honorable Karnataka high court, satya meva jayathe, finally won Law, satya and dharma.

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
April 3,2020

Bengaluru, April 3: Thirteen people in Karnataka, who had attended the Tablighi Jamaat event in Delhi, have tested positive for coronavirus, said state education minister S Suresh Kumar.

"13 attendees of Delhi's Tablighi Jamaat event have tested COVID-19 positive and 187 were tested negative," said Kumar, who has been entrusted to look into queries related to COVID-19.

He added, "A total number of four COVID-19 positive cases have been confirmed today -- a 75-year-old man in Bagalkote, a 70-year-old in Belagavi, a 26-year-old in Belagavi and a 20-year-old in Belagavi."

"The three people from Belagavi had attended the Tablighi Jamaat event in Delhi," he said, adding that the total number of cases in the state increased to 128.

The reports of 88 other people who had attended the Tablighi Jamaat event are yet to be received, the minister said.

The total number of COVID-19 positive cases in India on Friday rose to 2,547 including 162 cured/discharged and 62 deaths, according to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

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
February 12,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 12: Karnataka Sanghatanegala Okkoota, a congregation of various pro-Kannada organisations, has called for a state-wide bandh in Karnataka on Thursday (13 February 2020) demanding reservation in jobs for Kannadigas in both government and private sectors.

The Karnataka bandh, which will begin from 6 am to 6 pm, is likely to impact life in Bengaluru as well as in other parts of the state. Interestingly, Ola and Uber drivers have also extended support to the bandh. 

In Bengaluru, some other drivers’ associations, including Jai Bharatha Vehicle Owners and Drivers Association and Adarsha Auto and Taxi Union have also supported the bandh.

It is not yet clear as to whether the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) staff and workers associations will back Thursday’s bandh.

Several other organisations like the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC), Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), and Lorry Owners Association have supported the February 13 bandh.

In view of the bandh call, schools, colleges and hospitals across Karnataka are likely to remain closed on Thursday.

The Sarojini Mahishi report, which in 1984 suggested that Kannadigas should be given some reservation in jobs in private companies, public sector undertakings and multinational companies, is yet to be implemented.

It is to be noted that Sarojini Mahishi, a four-time MP and Janatha party leader, was appointed by the Ramakrishna Hegde government to head the panel in 1983. The committee submitted an interim report in June 1984. However, a final report was tabled in December 1986 with 58 recommendations, of which the Karnataka government had accepted 45.

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 news network
February 14,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.

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.