• Madras High Court rejects PIL against telecast of PM's speech in TN temples

    National
    Madras High Court rejects PIL against telecast of PM's speech in TN temples
    Digital Desk: Maintaining that there was nothing political within the address delivered by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a function on the 'samadhi' of Adi Shankara in Uttarakhand, the Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition alleging breach of 'Temple Entry Rules' within the telecast of his deal with.

    Rangarajan Narasimhan of Srirangam in Tiruchirappalli district filed a suit alleging that the Prime Minister's Pooja and address at the Samadhi at Kedarnath on November 5, 2021, were directly telecast in more than 16 temples across Tamil Nadu. Rule 8 of the Temple Entry Rules were broken.

    This rule established that temple grounds should not be utilized for occasions irrelevant to temple rituals. According to State Advocate-General R Shanmugasundaram, the Prime Minister's attendance at the event was televised live due to a note from the Union government. The Prime Minister sidestepped discussing politics. He explained that it was simply a religious program.

    Also Read: Three-point seat belts are mandatory for all front-facing passengers in car: Government 

    The bench, pleased with the AG's submissions, said that the PM's address was not political. He merely said Adi Shankara and the practices to fight Covid-19, which cannot be deemed political. 

    The petitioner has taken one section out of context and without regarding the speech's overall composition. The Madras High Court bench overlooked the petitioner's appeal after indicting him for driving the charge without comprehending the address.

    The petitioner claimed that the prime minister benefited from the chance to update citizens on the government's actions. The show was broadcast live with large screens and loudspeakers within the state's temples. 

    The occasion was attended by several parties (BJP) politicians. Rule 8 of the Temple Entry Rules was shattered completely. According to the petitioner, word-for-word also broke the constitutional's fundamental liberties safeguarded by Article 26.