Judge pens poem for unity between Tenkalai and Vadakalai sects of Vaishnavites

Impressing upon the need for the Tenkalai and Vadakalai sects of Vaishnavites to end the differences between them since the 15th century, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court has penned a poem calling upon them to walk together in peace.
The judge said, the sects should abide by the rule of law and celebrate temple festivals peacefully, which was the objective of any religion, instead of attempting to project their respective Acharyas — Manavala Mamuni and Vedanta Desikar — even above Lord Venkateswara.
The observations were made while dismissing a writ petition filed jointly by T.A.P. Srirangachari and K.B. Srinivasan of the Tenkalai sect against an order passed by the Executive Officer of Vilakoli Perumal Sri Vedantha Desikar Temple in Kancheepuram on May 28, 2024.
The petitioners complained that the Executive Officer had prevented the Tenkalai sect from reciting Tengalaimantram and Tengalaivazhithirunamam (hymns in praise of their Acharya - Manavala Mamuni) even during the processions taken outside the temple.
They said, the legal dispute regarding recitation of the hymns had begun as early as in 1811 leading to a decree passed in favour of the Tenkalai sect by the Conjeevaram (Kancheepuram) district munsif court on May 15, 1915. The decree was confirmed by the Madras High Court on July 18, 1918, they claimed.
However, the EO, on the other hand, told the court that the Tenkalai sect had given up their right to recite the hymns inside the temple for several decades and that it was only the Vadakalai who had been reciting the Divyaprabandam as well as other hymns for over five decades.
He also said that a writ petition filed by the Tenkalai sect in 2006 for recitation of the hymns inside the temple was dismissed by a single judge in 2014 and the order was confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court in 2024. The Supreme Court too had upheld the order.
After recording the submissions, Justice Venkatesh said, the writ petitioners could not seek to enforce a civil court decree by way of a writ petition. He observed that the petitioners could only file an execution petition before the competent civil court for implementing of the decree.
Not finding any reason to interfere with the Executive Officer's 2024 order, the judge said, the officer should not be dragged to the police station on charges of failing to enforce the civil court decree. Highlighting that police could not interfere in civil disputes, the judge said, they could interfere only if there was breach of peace.
The judge also said that the Tenkalai sect could think through the whole issue and join the Vadakalai sect in reciting the Divyaprabandam alone during the processions outside the temple. However, if they insist on reciting hymns in praise of their Acharya too, then the remedy would only be an execution petition.
The judge concluded his verdict with the poem: 'Vadakalai and Thenkalai, two petals on one stem, both seek Lord Venkateswara Perumal, both belong to Him. In the name of Acharyas, the quarrels still ignite, yet, those wise souls now bask in the Lord's pure light. Their journeys ended at His lotus feet so grand, while we, their children, still draw lines in the sand. Let us honour their path, let old divisions cease - and walk together united in faith and peace.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hindustan Times

19 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

Women don't need husband's consent or sign for passport: HC

Bengaluru : A woman does not need her husband's consent and signature to apply for a passport and insisting on the same is an instance of 'male supremacism', the Madras high court has said disposing of a petition filed by a woman who sought directions to authorities to issue her a fresh passport. Madras high court called the RPO's demand for an estranged husband's consent for passport issuance "shocking."(Madras High Court (File)) Saying the insistence by the Regional Passport Office (RPO) that the woman get her estranged husband's permission for issuance of a passport was 'shocking', the bench of justice N Anand Venkatesh said it shows the 'mindset of the society in treating woman who are married as if they are chattel belonging to the husband'. The woman, Revathy, moved the court saying she applied for a passport in April, but her application was not processed and the petitioner was informed that she must obtain the signature of her husband in Form-J and only thereafter, the application will be processed by the Chennai RPO. The petitioner got married in 2023 and there was a matrimonial dispute between the two, which resulted in her husband filing a petition before a local court, seeking the dissolution of the marriage. This petition was pending. The RPO also took the pending dispute into consideration, following which she filed the present petition. What the Madras HC bench said In his order, the judge said that in the considered view of this court, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking a passport has to be processed independently. 'It is not necessary for a wife to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before the authority,' the judge said in the June 18 order. 'This insistence made by the 2nd respondent (the RPO) shows the mindset of the society in treating woman who are married as if they are chattel belonging to the husband. It is quite shocking that the passport office is insisting for the permission of the husband and his signature in a particular form in order to process the application submitted by the petitioner for passport,' the court said. The judge said the petitioner after marriage does not lose her individuality and a wife can always apply for a passport without the permission or signature of the husband in any form. It noted that it was not possible for the petitioner woman to obtain her husband's signature on the application in view of the strained relationship between them, the judge said, the RPO was insisting the woman 'fulfil an impossibility'. 'The practice of insisting for permission from the husband to apply for passport, does not augur well for a society which is moving towards emancipation. This practice is nothing short of male supremacism,' the court said. The judge directed the RPO to process the application submitted by the petitioner and issue a passport in her name on her satisfying the other requirements. This process shall be completed within four weeks, the judge added.

The Hindu

a day ago

• The Hindu

HC sets aside condition requiring vehicle pass for participants coming to Lord Murugan devotees conference

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday set aside the condition requiring vehicle pass for participants to attend Muruga Bakthargalin Aanmeega Maanadu to be held in Madurai on June 22. The court was hearing an appeal preferred by M. Arasupandi of Madurai, zonal secretary of Hindu Munnani, who challenged the condition requiring vehicle pass for participants to attend the event. Allowing the appeal, a Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar observed that the condition imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar range, Madurai, lacked jurisdiction. The Assistant Commissioner could not have issued a blanket prohibitory order restraining the entry of vehicles into Madurai city without vehicle pass for the conference participants. 'We fail to understand as to how such a condition could have been imposed by the Assistant Commissioner in the first place. An Assistant Commissioner can have jurisdiction and sway only over the territorial limits and not over the entire Madurai city', the court observed. Right to movement throughout India is guaranteed to all citizens under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. It is open to any citizen to enter Madurai city in his/her vehicle and such a right cannot be interfered with by an Assistant Commissioner of Police. 'We are a republican democracy. Just as ease of doing business is important, the ease of participation in democratic gatherings is equally vital. The authorities ought not to come in the way of the citizens exercising their democratic right', the court observed. The court observed that if the objective of the police is to gather details and particulars of the vehicles entering the area where the event is to be held, it can be easily achieved by employing a simple technology such as scanning the license plates of vehicles. To address the concerns expressed by authorities, the appellant had undertaken that participants who come in personal or hired vehicles would deposit photostat copies of RC book, insurance certificate and driving licence in the police booths maintained by Madurai City Police at the earmarked parking places. The organisers assured the court that arrangements had been made so that there would be no stampede which was witnessed in Bengaluru, Delhi and other places recently.

Mint

a day ago

• Mint

Madras High Court's BIG verdict: Not necessary for woman to get husband's signature for applying passport

In a big move, the Madras High Court, on Friday declared that it is not necessary for a woman to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before the authority. Justice N Anand Venkatesh declared the ruling while disposing a woman's petition who sought direction to the authorities to issue a fresh passport without insisting signature from her husband in a time bound manner. 'It is not necessary for a wife to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before the authority,' PTI quoted Judge Venkatesh as saying. In her petition, the woman, Revathi stated that despite a pending divorce case filed by her husband after their marriage in 2023, the Regional Passport Office (RPO) refused to process her passport application submitted in April 2025, citing the need for her husband's signature in Form-J before proceeding. The Madras High Court also noted that forcing the wife to get her husband's signature when the relationship between the parties was in doldrums, was like asking the woman to fulfil an impossibility, reported Live Law. "The practice of insisting for permission from the husband to apply for a passport, does not augur well for a society which is moving towards woman emancipation. This practice is nothing short of male supremacism", the judge further noted while hearing the case. The judge also noted that the insistence made by the RPO shows the mindset of the society in treating women who were married as if they were chattel belonging to the husband. Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the RPO to process the woman's passport application and issue a passport in her name on her satisfying the other requirements. This process shall be completed within four weeks, the judge added.