09/04/2010
The Supreme Court today agreed to consider a plea for removing alleged unreasonable restrictions imposed by the authorities in Ayodhya on worshipping of Lord Rama in the temple at the disputed site.
"We will consider your plea," a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice Deepak Verma said while asking Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy, a party in the matter, to move a fresh application in this regard.
"You have to a file proper application and then only the respondents can file response," the Bench said and gave three weeks time to him to submit the application.
The Janata Party chief told the court that he has filed an affidavit as directed by it in March last year which contains the prayers sought by him.
"My prayer is against the restrictions imposed on worship," he said and drew the attention of the bench that he has been impleaded as a party in the pending matter.
During the brief hearing, Swamy clarified to the bench that he was not raising the question of whether Ram temple be built at the site or not but restricting his prayers to worship of Lord Rama in the makeshift temple.
He has alleged that authorities in Ayodhya have put unreasonable restrictions on worshipping of Lord Rama in the temple at the disputed site.
Earlier on January 29, he had submitted that irrespective of the final outcome relating to the title deed dispute pending in the Allahabad High Court, the authorities should ensure adequate arrangements for devotees to have a 'darshan' of the idols. Denial of the same was violative of their fundamental rights, he had said.
Swamy has contended that the regulations imposed on the puja practice by the Uttar Pradesh Government in consultation with the Statutory Receiver, the Commissioner, Faizabad District, were unreasonable and unnecessarily harsh.
"According to this applicant (Swamy), these (regulations) are highly derogatory, humiliating and unreasonable and particularly harsh on aged, infirm or even female devotees," the affidavit placed by him in support of his application before the bench said.
K.Venugopal
#1
Friday, 09 April 2010 23:04:40
V.Sunder's comment that "Lord Ram will not be angry if he is worshipped at some other place" is like saying that Lord Ram would not have been angry if another bride was offered by Ravana in place of kidnapped Sita! Maybe if V.Sunder was in Lord Ram's situation he would have accepted Ravana's offer, but all Hindus are not such cowards to accept the worship of Lord Ram in any other place than at his birth place. Such a worship would not be at Ram Janmabhoomi just as another bride would not be Sita.
=====================================
K.Venugopal#1
Friday, 09 April 2010 23:25:55
The right of all communities to unconditional worship as per their religion is granted in India not because of recent secularism but because of ancient Hinduism. Does any Muslim country allow that? Did any Christian country allow that before secularism took roots in Christian countries?
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3803282&pgnew=true&_p=0c5af25f-59ef-4e62-83e9-281ee2ea867d&_nwpt=1#uc2Lst0c5af25f-59ef-4e62-83e9-281ee2ea867d
"We will consider your plea," a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice Deepak Verma said while asking Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy, a party in the matter, to move a fresh application in this regard.
"You have to a file proper application and then only the respondents can file response," the Bench said and gave three weeks time to him to submit the application.
The Janata Party chief told the court that he has filed an affidavit as directed by it in March last year which contains the prayers sought by him.
"My prayer is against the restrictions imposed on worship," he said and drew the attention of the bench that he has been impleaded as a party in the pending matter.
During the brief hearing, Swamy clarified to the bench that he was not raising the question of whether Ram temple be built at the site or not but restricting his prayers to worship of Lord Rama in the makeshift temple.
He has alleged that authorities in Ayodhya have put unreasonable restrictions on worshipping of Lord Rama in the temple at the disputed site.
Earlier on January 29, he had submitted that irrespective of the final outcome relating to the title deed dispute pending in the Allahabad High Court, the authorities should ensure adequate arrangements for devotees to have a 'darshan' of the idols. Denial of the same was violative of their fundamental rights, he had said.
Swamy has contended that the regulations imposed on the puja practice by the Uttar Pradesh Government in consultation with the Statutory Receiver, the Commissioner, Faizabad District, were unreasonable and unnecessarily harsh.
"According to this applicant (Swamy), these (regulations) are highly derogatory, humiliating and unreasonable and particularly harsh on aged, infirm or even female devotees," the affidavit placed by him in support of his application before the bench said.
K.Venugopal
#1
Friday, 09 April 2010 23:04:40
V.Sunder's comment that "Lord Ram will not be angry if he is worshipped at some other place" is like saying that Lord Ram would not have been angry if another bride was offered by Ravana in place of kidnapped Sita! Maybe if V.Sunder was in Lord Ram's situation he would have accepted Ravana's offer, but all Hindus are not such cowards to accept the worship of Lord Ram in any other place than at his birth place. Such a worship would not be at Ram Janmabhoomi just as another bride would not be Sita.
=====================================
K.Venugopal#1
Friday, 09 April 2010 23:25:55
The right of all communities to unconditional worship as per their religion is granted in India not because of recent secularism but because of ancient Hinduism. Does any Muslim country allow that? Did any Christian country allow that before secularism took roots in Christian countries?
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3803282&pgnew=true&_p=0c5af25f-59ef-4e62-83e9-281ee2ea867d&_nwpt=1#uc2Lst0c5af25f-59ef-4e62-83e9-281ee2ea867d
No comments:
Post a Comment