Hyderabad: Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Monday asked senior counsels to suggest the name of a scholar or a mutt to resolve the differences over certain aspects of the celestial wedding of Lord Rama and Sita on Rama Navami at the Sri Sita Ramachandra Swamy temple in Bhadrachalam. The issue is over pravara and gothram that is mentioned during the celebration.
The judge was dealing with a batch of writ pleas filed by G.T.V. Manindhar and others complaining that there were multiple religious irregularities due to the changes made in the last 10 years.
Senior counsels D.V. Sitharam Murthy, L. Ravichander and Hariharan submitted arguments on behalf of the petitioners. Murthy pointed out that there can be no argument that Lord Rama and Sita were the children of Dasaratha and Janaka, and the reference to their gothram cannot be other than those mentioned in Ramayana.
It was argued that it would be travesty of religious belief to conduct the celestial marriage with the gothram and pravara of Lord Vishnu and Goddess Lakshmi, as is being done presently at the temple. He said that the references must be to the Ramayana and all research must stop at the doorstep of the epic.
Echoing similar arguments, Hariharan pointed out the provisions in the Endowments Act and argued that it saved all customs and usages as rights.
Arguing for the implead petitioner K.E. Sthalasai, Ravichander pointed out that the controversy was a needless introduction of a needless dichotomy between Lord Rama and Lord Vishnu. “This is unheard of in Sanatana Dharma,” he said.
Ravichander also pointed out that the epic would not form the basis of the customs of the temple. Marriages are performed in different manners in different communities and different states within the broad umbrella of Sanatana Dharma. He pointed out that in Sanatana Dharma the question to be addressed is not what the religion prescribes but what the local custom is.
The customs and usages of the temple at Bhadrachalam, he said, were prescribed by the relevant Agama Shastra. Ravichander said that apart from alleging that the reference to the gothram and pravara has been changed there is no proof of how it was traditionally done. The burden of proving the change is cast on the petitioners, he said.
Ravichander said that there was no pleading, leave alone evidence, of any substance in these directions. “Invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court on the question of gothram and pravara of God is misconceived and the court should be guarded in exercising its jurisdiction in such matters,” he said.
The judge wanted senior counsels to examine the possibility of referring the matter to an expert and posted it to Wednesday.
