High Court Refuses Interim Order on Name, Gotra of Bhadradri Rama
Justice Surepalli Nanda heard the petitions challenging alleged deviations in the manner the presiding deity, Lord Sri Rama, was addressed during the annual Kalyana Mahotsavam during Sri Rama Navami.
Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court on Monday indicated that it would examine the maintainability of a batch of writ petitions filed in 2022 and later raising a religious and legal dispute concerning ritual practices at the Sri Seetha Ramachandraswamy Temple at Bhadrachalam.
Justice Surepalli Nanda heard the petitions challenging alleged deviations in the manner the presiding deity, Lord Sri Rama, was addressed during the annual Kalyana Mahotsavam during Sri Rama Navami.
According to the petitioners, temple authorities have been referring to the deity as “Ramanarayana” in recent years instead of the traditionally accepted “Sri Ramachandra Swamy,” and have correspondingly altered the Gotra and Pravara invocations recited during the ceremony.
Senior counsels D.V. Sitharam Murthy, V. Hariharan and Kowuturu Pavan Kumar contend that such changes depart from long-standing temple traditions and affect the religious identity of the institution.
The counsels argued that, for over three centuries, the deities have been worshipped as Sri Ramachandra Swamy, the son of King Dasaratha of Vasishta Gotra, and Goddess Sita, daughter of King Janaka.
After the change, which allegedly took place in 2012, the deities are referred to as “Ramanarayana” and “Seeta Mahalakshmi,” along with corresponding changes in lineage invocation, which was described as a significant departure from established practice.
They also emphasised the historical and devotional legacy associated with the temple, including references to Bhakta Ramadas, to argue that the identity of the deity as the son of King Dasaratha is central to the temple’s traditions. Any omission or alteration of such references, particularly in ritual invocations, was argued to amount to a distortion of established custom.
They informed the court that the executive officer of the temple and the commissioner of the endowment department — despite the court’s order — have neither submitted a report on this issue nor filed the counter-affidavits so far.
They brought to the notice of the court the contempt petition filed against the authorities for non-compliance with the court orders. They requested the court to issue orders as the Kalyanosthavam is going to be held on March 27.
K. Raghavacharyulu, the counsel appearing for the temple’s Sthanacharyulu, argued that Lord Rama has shatakoti namas (an innumerable number of names) and he was called as Vykunta Rama. Even he was also called Jaganmohini on Brahmotsavam and on Chiluka Dwadasi. He also submitted that the Valmiki Ramayana did not mention Gothra or Pravara that could be used during the Kalyanotsavam.
Further, he argued that there are only two Gothras — Auchutha and Sowbhagya — which do not belong to humans. Moreover, the Surya Vamsha, which Lord Rama belongs to, has the Kashyapasa Gothra. The counsel also argued that initially, no Hanuman temple existed in front of the Rama temple at Bhadrachalam. It had a Garuda temple.
The Government Pleader, however, requested the court not to pass any interim directions, submitting that the matter is sensitive in nature and that the Advocate General would address the court on behalf of the state. The court declined to grant any interim relief and clarified that it would first adjudicate the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions. The matter has been adjourned to March 25, 2026.
