Chennai: Basic traits required for a person who has denounced worldly pleasures are lacking in Nithyananda as he is after power and is tainted with allegations regarding sexual practices and abuse in his ashram, run under different philosophy completely alien to saivite philosophy, said Madras high court while restraining Nithyananda from entering the Madurai Adheenam Mutt.
Passing orders on a petition from M. Jagathalapradapan, Justice R. Mahadevan said it is not in dispute that various criminal cases are pending. Nithyananda in his quest for power has been a prolific litigant against various mutts of various beliefs claiming the status of madathipathi of all of them. Leading the life of a sanyasi is also one of the primordial traits.
The photographs produced by Nithyananda clearly manifest that he has not been leading a simple life, the judge said, adding that perusal of the scheme of the mutt states that junior pontiff is to be appointed from sishyas of Thirugnanasambandar Adheenam and after several Dheeshas and Kashayams only acharya abise kham is to be conducted.
In this case, procedures have not been followed. Only acharya abishekam was performed and there are no particulars as to the dates on which various deekshas and kashyams were given. “In any case, such actions, in the opinion of this court, may not stand the judicial scrutiny as the appointment of a successor pontiff, though a right, is always subject to adherence to basic principles and procedures followed by the mutt from the time of Thirugnanasam bandar," the judge added.
The judge said it was also evident that for a person to be appointed as a madathipathi, he has to be a sishya of another and must denounce everything attached to him. In this case, Nithyananda was a self-styled Madapathi of Nithyananda Dyanapeetam, Karnataka. While so, his claim of being a follower of Sri-La-Sri Arunagirinatha Sri Gnanasam banda Desika paramcharya Swamigal was fallacious. Also, a madathipathi of one mutt normally cannot be appointed as a pontiff of any other mutt, which follows a different philosophy.
In the present case, in addition to the above, Nithyananda has his own ashram at Bidadi. In such event, he could not have resided continuously at Madurai, which was also not his case, the judge pointed out.
The judge said as Nithyananda has admitted and filed an affidavit that he was not the 293rd pontiff, he was not entitled to claim any right as such. Further, as his appointment has been revoked and pending adjudication before the civil court, he has not right to enter into the mutt or any temple under the mutt either as a junior pontiff or 293rd pontiff....