HC notice to SJTA chief over Puri temple ritual

Cuttack: The Orissa high court on Wednesday issued notice to the chief administrator of Shree Jagannath Temple Administration (SJTA) in response to a petition filed by Santosh Kumar Patra and seven others, challenging the recent inclusion of two individuals in the sacred 'patabola seva' — a ritual service traditionally reserved for hereditary sevaks of the Puri Jagannath Temple.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The petitioners, who claim to be patara bishoyi sevaks and direct descendants of the original Record of Rights (ROR) holders, argued that the June 12, 2025 order issued by the chief administrator permitting two non-descendants to perform the patabola seva was 'arbitrary and unlawful'.
Through their counsel advocate Avijit Patnaik, the petitioners contended that the patabola seva is a sacred and confidential religious duty, the knowledge of which is passed down exclusively through hereditary lines.
They alleged that including outsiders not recorded as sevaks in the ROR violates Section 21(2)(1) of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955.
The service is not only religious but carries deep cultural and traditional significance, known only to those who have inherited it through generations, advocate Patnaik argued.
While hearing the matter, Justice R K Pattanaik said, "Considering the facts pleaded on record and the plea advanced by the petitioners, the court is inclined to have the response of Shree Jagannath Temple Administration in particular."
The court directed the SJTA to file its reply and listed the matter for further hearing on June 25.
In an interim order, Justice Pattanaik also directed the temple administration to consider excluding the two newly appointed individuals from participating in the ongoing patabola seva, ensuring that the service continues undisrupted in the meantime.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

4 hours ago

• Time of India

Court order seeking FIR in EDC land fraud matter stayed

Panaji: The high court of Bombay at Goa stayed the order of a North Goa court directing the anti-corruption branch (ACB) of the directorate of vigilance to register a first information report (FIR) in connection with allegations of fraud related to land allotment at EDC, Patto. Initially, the trial court had directed the CBI to register the FIR but later assigned the task to the ACB. S Karpe, additional public prosecutor said that the order passed by the sessions court judge at Panaji in the criminal case did not take into consideration the consent as contemplated under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018. According to the counsel, there was no reason given by the trial court for arriving at the conclusion that the FIR needs to be registered within 24 hours in accordance with the complaint. Subsequently, an application was filed for an extension of time, which was granted by the sessions court on June 19, extending the same by 48 hours. 'Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on July 11, 2025. Notice be issued by all the available modes of service. In the meantime, the effect and operation of the order dated June 9, 2025, shall be stayed till the next date,' Justice Nivedita Mehta observed. Activists had moved the court alleging that govt property was allotted to EDC to house certain offices, but they allegedly leased and sold land without obtaining permission from the govt, causing a loss of Rs 300 crore to the state exchequer. Even if permission was obtained, they ought to have deposited 50% of the amount with the govt or the EDC, which has not been done, the activists had alleged. 'In the present case, the FIR ought to have been registered. There is nothing exceptional in the present case that warrants a delay in the registration of an FIR on the ground of a preliminary inquiry. Even if there were exceptional circumstances in the case, any preliminary inquiry could not have, under any circumstances, exceeded two days,' the sessions court Judge Irshad Agha had stated. 'In the present case, the FIR ought to have been registered and a preliminary inquiry ought to have been carried out by the investigating agency. However, there is enough material to directly register the FIR,' the judge had said.

The Hindu

7 hours ago

• The Hindu

Invoking anti-gangster law to counter one communal violence incident triggered by a social media post is misuse: SC

The Supreme Court has concluded that the use of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act — a law meant to counter organised crime — in a solitary case of communal disturbance caused by an 'incendiary' social media post, amounts to a misuse of the stringent penal law. The recent judgment, authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, came after the court heard an appeal filed by people accused under the State law for mobbing and vandalising the business establishment of a man who posted content derogatory to a particular religion on social media. 'When juxtaposed with the object and intent of the U.P. Gangsters Act, which was enacted to combat organised gang-based crime and dismantle criminal syndicates that pose a persistent threat to public order, the application of the Act to the appellants based on a single incident of communal violence flaring up from an incendiary post made against a particular religion represents a significant departure from its legislative purpose,' Justice Mehta wrote. 'Colourable exercise of power' The judgment said the application of the Gangsters Act in the current case bore the 'hallmark of colourable exercise of power for purposes extraneous to the Act's legitimate objectives'. The court reminded the State government of Article 21 of the Constitution that 'no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law'. Justice Mehta observed that the procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, reasonable, and not arbitrary, presumptive, or oppressive. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquired even greater significance when an 'extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions' like the U.P. Gangsters Act was invoked by the State, he said. 'The power conferred upon the State cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play,' Justice Mehta emphasised. 'Need solid evidence' Extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards like the U.P. Gangsters Act, must be invoked only if the evidence met a threshold of credibility and substantiality. 'The materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity… When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions,' the top court held. Quashing the FIR and allowing the appeal, the court said the case failed to meet the 'essential threshold' required to invoke the Gangsters Act. It had rested 'largely on presumptive theories rather than presenting tangible material to establish the probability that the appellants were engaged in organised criminal activity,' the court said.

New Indian Express

14 hours ago

• New Indian Express

Telangana HC seeks explanation over delay in opening government hospital

HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday pulled up the state government for the inordinate delay in making operational a fully constructed and equipped 100-bedded government hospital in Alampur, Jogulamba Gadwal district. The court directed the government to file its response within two weeks, explaining the reasons for not commencing regular medical services at the facility. A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara expressed serious concern over the continued inaction, questioning why the hospital - built at a cost of Rs 21 crore and completed in October 2023 - remains non-functional even 18 months after completion. During the hearing, Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul observed, 'A 100-bedded hospital has been constructed in Alampur, but the state government is not opening it, not providing staff, and the equipment remains unused.' The Bench directed the government counsel to obtain clear instructions from relevant departments on the reasons for the delay. The directive came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by social activist and politician S Ramchandra Reddy, a resident of Ieeja in Jogulamba Gadwal district. The petitioner alleged that despite several representations to the authorities, the hospital has not been made functional, depriving the people of Alampur of basic medical services.