Nama row: State seeks time to file statement

Staff Reporter

Court moved over ‘Tengalai-Vadagalai nama’ for deity

‘Tengalai tradition is followed in the Melkote temple’

‘Insertion of Vadagalai nama on deity is illegal’

BANGALORE: The State Government on Tuesday sought time from the Karnataka High Court to file its objections on a petition by an archak of the Yoganarasimhaswamy Temple in Melkote challenging an action of the Muzrai Department in anointing the deity with a Nama belonging to a rival sect of the Sri Vaishanavas.

The petitioner, Anandalawan, who is a member of the Tengalai sect of Sri Vaishnavas, had contested a notification of the Commissioner for Religious and Endowment Department in permitting the Yoganarasimha deity to be anointed with a Nama belonging to the Vadagalai sect.

The petitioner’s main contention was that a local court in Srirangapatna had, on February 26, 2000, said that the Yoganarasimhaswamy Temple at Melkote would follow the Tengalai tradition of worship and that the insertion of Vadagalai nama in the temple and Gopura, including a Silver Vadagalai Nama, on the deity, is illegal.

He said the Srirangapatna court had also given permanent injunction restraining the State from introducing the Vadagalai names in the temple or the Gopura.

An appeal against this order also came to be dismissed.

He said the Muzrai Department passed a wrong order on the nama when some of the ornaments in the temple, including the ornamental nama, was stolen.

The officials of the Muzrai Department (under whose management the temple comes) and those in-charge of the puja, permitted a tilaka to be placed on the forehead of the deity.

However, on January 30, 2008, the Department, without hearing the Tengalai devotees and other devotees, permitted an ornamental Vadagalai nama to be placed on the deity.

When the matter came up before court, Advocate-General Uday Holla, who represented the State, submitted that the Muzrai Department could not file the affidavit (statement) as the Commissioner was appointed as Election Officer in Uttar Pradesh and he had reported for duty there.

He sought time from the court to file an affidavit in the matter. Justice N.K. Patil adjourned further hearing of the case till December.

Recommended for you