Courts cannot be sole repository of all knowledge’
Special Correspondent
CHENNAI, June 06, 2018 00:00 IST
Judge refuses to interfere with anointment of pontiff for Tiruvavaduthurai Aadheenam
Observing that courts of law cannot be the sole repository of all knowledge and wisdom in all matters and cannot substitute their views particularly in matters of religious functions, the Madras High Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with the anointment of Meenakshisundara Thambiran as the pontiff of Tiruvavaduthurai Aadheenam in Mayiladuthurai Taluk of Nagapattinam district on November 22, 2012, the day when his predecessor had died.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by ousted junior pontiff Kasiviswanathan, Justice V. Parthiban held that courts could not exercise writ jurisdiction to enter into nebulous area of religious institutional functions. Especially when there was no statute governing the issue, the court could not extend its long arm of jurisdiction in a vacuum unless or until there was a strong case for protecting public policy and public interest as against interests of the institution, he said.
In so far as the present case was concerned, the judge pointed out that the earlier pontiff Sri Sivaprakasa Desika Pandara Sannithi had appointed the writ petitioner as junior pontiff in March 1997. However, subsequently, the petitioner was found to be acting against the interests of the Mutt and a criminal case was registered against him in 2002 on charges of attempting to murder the pontiff. He was even convicted by the trial court in 2004.
Though the conviction was confirmed by the appellate court too in 2005, the High Court had set aside the conviction in 2011 by according the benefit of doubt. In the meantime, the Mutt, in 2002 itself, disentitled the petitioner from acting as the junior pontiff. Holding that the petitioner’s removal from the post was perfectly right, the judge held that his subsequent acquittal would not wipe out the initial conviction in its entirety.
Pointing out that there were other many other reasons for the Mutt having decided to remove the writ petitioner from being its junior pontiff, the judge said that his counter claim of being a pious and devout saint could be proved only before a civil court by adducing oral and documentary evidence.
Special Correspondent
CHENNAI, June 06, 2018 00:00 IST
Judge refuses to interfere with anointment of pontiff for Tiruvavaduthurai Aadheenam
Observing that courts of law cannot be the sole repository of all knowledge and wisdom in all matters and cannot substitute their views particularly in matters of religious functions, the Madras High Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with the anointment of Meenakshisundara Thambiran as the pontiff of Tiruvavaduthurai Aadheenam in Mayiladuthurai Taluk of Nagapattinam district on November 22, 2012, the day when his predecessor had died.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by ousted junior pontiff Kasiviswanathan, Justice V. Parthiban held that courts could not exercise writ jurisdiction to enter into nebulous area of religious institutional functions. Especially when there was no statute governing the issue, the court could not extend its long arm of jurisdiction in a vacuum unless or until there was a strong case for protecting public policy and public interest as against interests of the institution, he said.
In so far as the present case was concerned, the judge pointed out that the earlier pontiff Sri Sivaprakasa Desika Pandara Sannithi had appointed the writ petitioner as junior pontiff in March 1997. However, subsequently, the petitioner was found to be acting against the interests of the Mutt and a criminal case was registered against him in 2002 on charges of attempting to murder the pontiff. He was even convicted by the trial court in 2004.
Though the conviction was confirmed by the appellate court too in 2005, the High Court had set aside the conviction in 2011 by according the benefit of doubt. In the meantime, the Mutt, in 2002 itself, disentitled the petitioner from acting as the junior pontiff. Holding that the petitioner’s removal from the post was perfectly right, the judge held that his subsequent acquittal would not wipe out the initial conviction in its entirety.
Pointing out that there were other many other reasons for the Mutt having decided to remove the writ petitioner from being its junior pontiff, the judge said that his counter claim of being a pious and devout saint could be proved only before a civil court by adducing oral and documentary evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment