Reality check: SC asks amicus to visit Srimandir

Also Read

Chariots ready, City alert: Puri decked up for Rath Yatra 2025

9 hours ago

Voluntary service camps at Puri Rath Yatra reflect legacy of selfless service: Odisha Governor

10 hours ago

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday asked senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, who is assisting it as an amicus curiae in a matter related to administration of Jagannath temple in Puri, to visit the shrine to assess the ground reality there.
A bench headed by Justice AK Sikri said this after the counsel appearing for Odisha argued that the amicus should visit the temple and himself see the situation there.
When the bench asked Kumar about it, he said he would visit the temple February 22 and 23 and apprise the court. The top court is dealing with a plea which has highlighted the difficulties faced by the devotees at Jagannath temple and their alleged harassment or exploitation by the ‘sevaks’ of the temple.
During the hearing Tuesday, Kumar said one of the major issues at the temple was the lack of proper crowd management and absence of queue system for the devotees.
To this, the state counsel said as the architecture of the shrine was different it was not easy to have a “typical queue system” for the devotees there. The counsel said, “The amicus can go there and see the situation. The problem which the state is facing today cannot be visible unless the amicus goes there and sees it himself. We are not opposing the queue system.” After Kumar said he would go to the shrine, the bench asked the state to make arrangements for his visit there.
The bench also said that Puri’s District Judge, who had earlier given a report to the apex court about administration of the shrine, and administrator of the temple to assist the amicus. The bench posted the matter for further hearing February 27. Kumar referred to the interim report filed last year by the district judge in SC which had raised the issue of alleged harassment of devotees by the ‘sevaks’ (staff) of the temple.
“Despite all the recommendations, either the state or the administrator are not doing anything or they do not want to do this due to which visitors are harassed,” the amicus told the bench. When one of the advocates raised the issue of ‘sevaks’, Justice Sikri observed, “We are telling you with our own experience that there is exploitation (of devotees).”