The Madras High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on the petitioner of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) while dismissing it.

The PIl had alleged encroachment of Government Poramboke land (Land that does not fall under the list of revenue records) situated at V. Kalathur Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District. The allegation has been made against the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department for encroachment.

The PIL filed by one V. Fahath Basha argued that the land in question is Government Poramboke land and a reference to the records has been given, where the land in question has been shown to be Nandhavanam.

The State Government Pleader and the counsel for the HR&CE Department have contested the petition alleging it to be motivated for extraneous consideration. The land in question has been classified as Nandhavanam and it was kept under the temple controlled by the HR & CE Department of the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, the Executive Officer of HR & CE Department or the temple has not encroached the Government land, rather taking into consideration the nature of the land, it was given to them and it was accordingly occupied. The possession on the land is very old and thereby the petitioner should have justified the delay for filing this petition. Otherwise, the petition even suffers from laches.

To analyze as to whether there is any encroachment, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N. Mala perused the records, where the land is shown to be Nandhavanam and accordingly it is kept under the temple controlled by the HR&CE Department.

In view of the above, the Bench observed that the land is in possession of the HR & CE Department for the past many years ie., more than decades. The petitioner has filed the PIL even without justifying the delay because, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the land was possessed by the temple under the control of the HR&CE Department almost 10 to 12 years back.

Therefore, the present PIL cannot be said to be bonafide as otherwise alleged by the respondents. Public interest litigation filed unnecessarily needs to be strictly dealt with so that it may not be filed without verification of true facts, the Court held.

“For the above reasons, finding it to be a not bonafide public interest litigation, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs 10,000 to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Chennai 600 104 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The compliance would be seen by the Registrar (Judicial) and if the payment of costs is not made within the time stipulated above, the case would be listed before this Court to see the compliance or take appropriate action for non-compliance,” the order reads.

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a PIL seeking directions to be issued to the Tamil Nadu government to withdraw the Annai Tamil Archanai scheme that allows devotees to opt for the chanting of hymns by priests in Tamil instead of Sanskrit.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu passed this order while hearing a PIL filed by Rangarajan Narasimhan. The grievance of the petitioner in the PIL is that the State Government is purporting to interfere in the religious affairs and altering the religious practices of Hindu religious institutions in temples.

The grievance appears to be particularly against the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department which is in control of a large number of temples in the State.

The petitioner claimed that most temples have been set up according to the agama principles and it has been the age-old tradition for mantras to be chanted in Sanskrit. According to the petitioner, the very sanctity of the mantras is destroyed if not chanted in Sanskrit.

The Court observed that the issue in consideration had already been settled in a 2008 High Court ruling by the Division Bench in the case of V.S. Sivakumar v. M. Pitchai Battar, where the question posed before the Court is recorded, whether providing for archanas to be performed in Tamil at the request of the devotees in addition to the existing practice of reciting archanas in Sanskrit, would offend the right to profess Hindu religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Also Read: Madras HC dismisses PIL against appointment of Additional AGs, says no merit in plea

“The Court held that there was nothing in the agamas or in other religious scripts to prohibit the chanting of mantras in Tamil in temples. The Court also held that the choice was vested with the devotees to seek for their archanas to be performed at their wishes by chanting mantras either in Tamil or in Sanskrit”, the Court said while citing the 2008 judgment.

The Court noted,

“As would be evident from the earlier judgment of the Court relied upon by the petitioner herein, 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. 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, 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 in the temples of chanting such mantras in Sanskrit has been dealt with in the later judgment of V.S. Sivakumar, the Court said.

Also Read: Madras High Court directs senior Tamil Nadu forests officer to catalogue all captive elephants in state

“Nothing that the petitioner cites would permit the Court to take a view at variance with the one expressed in V.S. Sivakumar. In the event, the petitioner requires a re-assessment, it has to be at an altogether different level,” the Court observed.

“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 2008 and instructs the manner in which mantras may be chanted in temples in the State,” the order reads.

Since the only issue which the petitioner raises is covered in the previous judgment of the Court which remains binding, there is no merit in the petition for it to be admitted, the Court said while dismissing the petition.