Even as demands from various political parties including the alliance party CPM and many social organisations are pouring in for the State government to hire a senior counsel to defend its decision on taking over the administration of the Chidambaram Natarajar temple in the Supreme Court, the ADMK regime is conspicuously maintaining silence on the matter.
“If the TN government fails to win the case, not only will assets and yearly donations land in the lap of a small group of Dikshidhars, it will create a precedent for similar demands in other temples across the State,” said S Raju, State coordinator of the Human Rights Protection Centre-TN has said. He said following the takeover of the temple by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Board in 2009, there has been marked improvement infrastructure. That included basic amenities for pilgrims like sanitation, lighting and counters for prasadam. “Till 2009, the Dikshidhars had claimed that the temple yielded just about Rs.30,000 in yearly donations. In contrast, in the last three years after its takeover, the temple has yielded over Rs. 1.28 crore in donation alone,” he said.
But during the proceedings of the case in the Supreme Court on Dec 3 before a Bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, State’s Additional Advocate-General Subramonium Prasad said the G.O. was necessitated because of “large scale mismanagement of temple properties.” To a question from the Bench whether the government had taken any decision on withdrawing its G.O., counsel said he needed further time for taking instructions. The AAG, however, said the Podu Dikshitars were in joint control of the management of the temple administration. They had not been denuded of their properties, which had been put under government control, he said and added that there was no interference in any religious activity of Podu Dikshitars in the temple.
The question from the Bench and the evasive reply given by the TN counsel raises doubts in the minds of people of whether there is any coveted move by the Jayalalitha regime to let the case lost and later hand over the temple administration back to the vested interests, Dikshidhars under the pretext of court order. The silence of the Chief Minister to the increasing demands to nominate a senior counsel to defend government’s case. compounds the doubt!
“If the TN government fails to win the case, not only will assets and yearly donations land in the lap of a small group of Dikshidhars, it will create a precedent for similar demands in other temples across the State,” said S Raju, State coordinator of the Human Rights Protection Centre-TN has said. He said following the takeover of the temple by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Board in 2009, there has been marked improvement infrastructure. That included basic amenities for pilgrims like sanitation, lighting and counters for prasadam. “Till 2009, the Dikshidhars had claimed that the temple yielded just about Rs.30,000 in yearly donations. In contrast, in the last three years after its takeover, the temple has yielded over Rs. 1.28 crore in donation alone,” he said.
But during the proceedings of the case in the Supreme Court on Dec 3 before a Bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, State’s Additional Advocate-General Subramonium Prasad said the G.O. was necessitated because of “large scale mismanagement of temple properties.” To a question from the Bench whether the government had taken any decision on withdrawing its G.O., counsel said he needed further time for taking instructions. The AAG, however, said the Podu Dikshitars were in joint control of the management of the temple administration. They had not been denuded of their properties, which had been put under government control, he said and added that there was no interference in any religious activity of Podu Dikshitars in the temple.
The question from the Bench and the evasive reply given by the TN counsel raises doubts in the minds of people of whether there is any coveted move by the Jayalalitha regime to let the case lost and later hand over the temple administration back to the vested interests, Dikshidhars under the pretext of court order. The silence of the Chief Minister to the increasing demands to nominate a senior counsel to defend government’s case. compounds the doubt!
No comments:
Post a Comment