{"id":137607,"date":"2021-01-20T14:24:57","date_gmt":"2021-01-20T08:54:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=137607"},"modified":"2021-01-22T14:25:43","modified_gmt":"2021-01-22T08:55:43","slug":"supreme-court-fake-babas-fake-ashrams","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/constitutional-law-news\/supreme-court-news\/supreme-court-fake-babas-fake-ashrams\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court refuses to entertain petition demanding action against ashrams run by fake babas"},"content":{"rendered":"\n


The\u00a0Supreme Court has\u00a0refused to deal with the petition filed by Dumpala Ramreddy, seeking directions to protect the inmates of Ashrams started by fake babas in the country from spreading of COVID 19 and frame guidelines in setting up of ashrams, spiritual entities in the country.\u00a0(Dumpala Ramreddy vs UOI and Anr)<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V Ramasubramanian has said we cannot deal with this kind of petition, while granting liberty to petitioner to withdraw it and give representation to the Government. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Senior Advocate Menka Guruswamy appearing for the petitioner who submitted that there 17 fake ashrams and baba\u2019s running in the country<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CJI-How will this court find out who is fake and who is not? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guruswamy- On the previous occasion the central govt was asked to respond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the prayer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guruswamy said that the list has been prepared by Akhil Bharatiya Akhada Parishad<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CJI- How can rely on this list? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guruswamy-It is only the UOI who can remit this problem. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

CJI- Alright then you withdraw and file a representation before the govt, we cannot deal with this kind of matter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Through his plea the petitioner had submitted that hundreds and thousands of disciples are residing in 17 fake ashrams in the country and the national capital where the petitioners\u2019 daughter is one among such persons trapped by fake babas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The petitioner had stated that his daughter, Santosh Rupa, has been trapped by a fake baba, Veerendra Dev Dixit, who is the founder of the Adhyatmika Vishwa Vidyalaya at Rohini in Delhi. This baba has been absconding for the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It had further submitted that the apex body of sages i.e. the Akhil Bharatiya Akhada Parishad has declared 17 babas as fake and cautioned the public from them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The petitioner had alleged that due to inaction of the government authorities, fake babas are running the ashrams and trapping innocent people, particularly women. Thousands of women have been forced to stay in the ashrams and they were given drugs and narcotics so that they would not leave the place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The petitioner had, thus, prayed for a direction to empty the ashrams run by fake babas, including the Adhyatmika Vidyalaya at Rohini in Delhi which is having hundreds of women inmates in unhygienic conditions to avoid spreading of COVID 19<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bench on the previous occasion had asked Solicitor Generla Tushar Mehta to look into the plea seeking action against illegal activities carried out in ashrams run by \u201cfraud babas\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The\u00a0Supreme Court has\u00a0refused to deal with the petition filed by Dumpala Ramreddy, seeking directions to protect the inmates of Ashrams started by fake babas in the country from spreading of COVID 19 and frame guidelines in setting up of ashrams, spiritual entities in the country.\u00a0(Dumpala Ramreddy vs UOI and Anr)\u00a0 A three-judge bench headed by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":133366,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[246,64],"tags":[100161,88415,2813,20232],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net\/IL\/uploads\/2020\/12\/28165729\/supreme-court-4-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137607"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=137607"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137607\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/133366"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137607"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137607"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137607"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}