HC rejects plea against 'archanai' in Tamil
There is no change in the circumstances and no case is made out for reconsidering a matter that has been concluded in the year 2008 itself and instructs the manner in which mantras may be chanted in temples in the State, the Bench said.Since the only issue which the petitioner raises is covered in the previous judgement which remains binding, there is no merit in the present petition for it to be admitted, the Bench added and dismissed the PIL.
The Madras High Court on Friday rejected a plea against the use of Tamil language while performing 'archanai' (pooja/chanting of mantras) in Hindu temples throughout the State. Citing the judgement of a Division Bench of the High Court delivered in 2008, the First Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P D Audikesavalu today dismissed at the admission stage itself a PIL petition from Ranganathan Narasimhan of Srirangam in Tiruchirappalli district.
The petition sought to restrain the State Tourism and Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Departments from interfering with the religious affairs and altering the religious practices of Hindu religious institutions in any manner and a direction to the departments to withdraw the Annai Tamizhil Archanai Scheme.
As would be evident from the 2008 judgement which was mainly relied upon by the petitioner, the issue there was whether the court would compel the use of a particular language and exclude other languages in Hindu religious institutions in the State at the behest of the petitioner therein. It was in such a context where the petitioner insisted that Tamil alone must be the language in which mantras ought to be chanted in temples in this State. But the court found that the plea was unjustified and dismissed the petition. The larger issue as to whether mantras may be chanted in Tamil at the behest of the devotee apart from the practice of chanting such mantras in Sanskrit in temples has been dealt with in the later part of the judgement, the Bench pointed out.
''Nothing that the petitioner cites would permit this court to take a view at variance with the one expressed in the 2008 case. In the event the petitioner requires a re-assessment, it has to be at an altogether different level,'' the Bench said.
Judicial discipline commands that when an issue has been decided, unless the circumstances have changed or the decision on the issue is rendered suspect on account of the judgment not taking the applicable law into account or any pronouncement of a superior forum has intervened, the matter may not be revisited. There is no change in the circumstances and no case is made out for reconsidering a matter that has been concluded in the year 2008 itself and instructs the manner in which mantras may be chanted in temples in the State, the Bench said.
Since the only issue which the petitioner raises is covered in the previous judgement which remains binding, there is no merit in the present petition for it to be admitted, the Bench added and dismissed the PIL.
(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)