Contempt petition against OPS over yagam at Secretariat

‘Deputy CM’s actions violate secular character of State’

January 26, 2019 12:29 am | Updated 12:29 am IST - CHENNAI

O. Panneerselva

O. Panneerselva

A criminal contempt of court petition has been filed in the Madras High Court against Deputy Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam and Chief Secretary Girija Vaidyanathan following news reports that a yagam was performed in his office at the Secretariat.

Anoor Jagadeesan, former Minister and Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam president, had filed the petition, accusing Mr. Panneerselvam of having created a small temple in his office and having performed a yagam, in violation of the secular character of the State.

The contempt petition has been numbered and referred to Advocate General Vijay Narayan for his consent under Section 15(1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971. Such consent is necessary to weed out frivolous, vexatious or malicious petitions filed in the court to punish individuals for criminal contempt.

In an affidavit, the petitioner said he was a Minister during former Chief Minister M.G. Ramachandran’s regime. Since the country had a secular character, the State government issued a circular as early as on April 26, 1968, to remove idols and other religious objects from government offices.

Contending that most of the Ministers who assumed office during the AIADMK regime in 1991 were believers in religion and superstition, he claimed they installed pictures of Gods and Goddesses in government offices and began to worship them. Hence, a Government Order was issued on December 13, 1993. As per the G.O., no new religious structure should be constructed in government offices. On January 29, 1997, when the DMK was in power, a government letter was issued instructing officials to ensure that no religious events were conducted on their office premises.

In 2010, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court ordered that the 1993 G.O. should be followed in letter and in spirit in all government establishments throughout the State.

Despite all this, “the second respondent (Mr. Panneerselvam) had established a small temple on his office premises at the Secretariat and conducted religious activities,” the petitioner said.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.