The Rajasthan High Court on Thursday stayed amendments to the by-laws of the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association by which the tenure of office bearers of the association was extended from one year to two years [Sunil Vyas and ors. v. The Bar Council of Rajasthan and ors.].

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman also appointed an Administrative Committee consisting of Senior Advocates Jagmal Singh Choudhary, Dr. Sachin Acharya and GR Poonia, to manage the affairs of the association until the final decision on the petition.

The bench noted that the amendment to the by-laws violated Section 12 of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958.

 “ We are prima facie of the view that the amendment in the by-laws which is in blatant violation of the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act. The term of the office bearers of the Bar Association if taken to be one year, has already come to an end on 13.12.2024. 12…..In that view of the matter, we are inclined to pass an interim order, staying the effect and operation of the impugned resolution extending the term of office bearers of Bar Association from one year to two year. We are also inclined to appoint Administrative Committee which shall manage the affairs of the Bar till final decision of this petition,” the Court said.

The Court passed the order on a petition filed by Jodhpur lawyer Sunil Vyas who moved the Court challenging a March 2024 resolution amending the by-laws to extend office bearers' tenure from one to two years.

The petitioner contended that procedural requirements under Section 12 of the Act were not followed while amending the by-laws. He argued that no written or printed report of the proposed amendment was submitted to all members, and the mandatory 10-day prior notice of the meeting was not issued. Moreover, a second special meeting, required to confirm the amendment, was not held.

The meeting on Apirl 16, 2024, where the amendment was passed, had only 70-75 members in attendance, despite the Association having around 2,500 members. This rendered the amendment invalid due to lack of quorum, it was contended.

The bar association argued that the amendment was made in compliance with the procedure outlined in its Memorandum of Association and by-laws. It was contended that the proposal was displayed on the notice board at the bar association's office and the amendment was approved by two-thirds of the members present and voting in the meeting on March 16, 2024.

However, the Court rejected the contention of respondent and observed that the respondents failed to meet Section 12 requirements, as no written report was submitted, no notice was sent to all members, and no second meeting was held.

"On prima facie consideration, as against clear stand taken by the petitioner that the requirement of Section 12 of the Act have not been complied with, the reply of the respondents, considered as it is, does not satisfy the requirement of submission of proposition in a written or printed report. Further, the requirement of report to be delivered or sent by post to every member of the society is also not reflected from the reply. Thirdly, in the present case there is material placed on record by respondents to show that the second meeting as mandated under sub-Section 2 of Section 12 of the Act was held. The entire case of the respondents that amendment in the by-laws have taken place is founded only on the basis of resolution passed on 16.04.2024," the Court said while staying the amendment.

The Court listed the matter for further consideration on March 17.

Senior advocate Anand Purohit, assisted by Mayank Roy along with advocates Ranjeet Joshi, Vishwajeet Joshi, Kapil Bissa, B P Mathur, Manoj Kumar, Vikram, M S Purohit, K S Rajpurohit, Himanshu Maheshwari, R R Chhaparwal, Rajat Chhaparwal and Vinod Choudhary appeared for the petitioner.

Senior Advocates Ravi Bhansali and Manoj Bhandari and advocates Vipul Dharnia, Aniket Tater along with Additional Advocate General NS Rathore, Assistant Additional Advocate General Arpit Samaria and advocates Muktesh Maheshwari, Gaurav Raka, Himanshu Shrimali, SS Choudhary, and KS Rajpurohit appeared for the respondents.

[Read Order]

The Allahabad High Court recently stayed Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh's order for formation of a new Elders Committee to oversee the elections of Ekikrit Bar Association, Mati Kanpur Dehat.

Justice Kshitij Shailendra found the order passed by Bar Council Chairman to be contrary to earlier High Court rulings pertaining to the statutory's body's powers over bar association elections.

"This Court is of the prima facie opinion that placing reliance upon previous decisions, coupled with interpretation of Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with other provisions including Bar Council of U.P. Election Rules, 1992 framed under Section 15(2) of the Advocates Act, at least two Division Benches, as noted above, have held that Chairman of Bar Council has no power or authority to decide the issue of constitution of Elders Committee or issue a direction for holding elections of the office bearers of a Bar Association," it said.

The order was passed on January 29 on a petition filed by the Elders Committee of the Ekikrit Bar Association, Mati Kanpur Dehat. Pertinently, the elections of the bar body were held on January 28.

Notably, a Special Bench was convened to hear the matter on a day declared as local holiday for Mauni Amavasya.

It was submitted before the Court that the Bar Council on January 12 appointed an observer for the elections.

However, a few days before the polling, the Chairman recalled the order, citing disputes over the Elders Committee. The Chairman then ordered constitution of a new Elders Committee and holding of elections under the supervision of the Observers of the Bar Council.

The incumbent Elders Committee in the plea before the Court alleged that that the decision was taken without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing.

The counsel representing the petitioners sought a stay on the Bar Council Chairman's order, arguing that in case the same was allowed to stand, a situation would arise where a new Elders Committee would be formed and a new election would be held.

On the other hand, the counsel representing the Bar Council, appearing through a video call, argued that the statutory body acted as per the Model Bye-laws and in in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961. 

It was submitted that only a direction was issued to the President/ Secretary of Bar Association to constitute a new Elders Committee as per the Model Bye-laws and then hold elections.

The Court rejected the argument that Model Bye-laws had come into existence conferring statutory powers upon a Bar Council to ensure proper constitution of Elders Committee and to issue other allied directions.

It ruled that the entry exercise of recalling the earlier order and then directing constitution of a news Elders Committee was contrary to the earlier decisions of the High Court.

"This Court is of the prima facie opinion in this case that once an election schedule was notified in December, 2024 and elections were held on 28.01.2025 in respect whereof, as per the election schedule, even the nomination papers were scrutinized and certain un-opposed declaration was also made on 20.01.2025 pursuant to the order dated 12.01.2025 issued by the Chairman, Bar Council of U.P. himself, which was confined only to provide Observers to supervise holding of elections on 28.01.2025, recalling his own order on 19.01.2025 entertaining an application filed by certain persons including the respondent no.3, without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, further, issuing certain directions as regards formation of a new Elders Committee and holding of another elections and, further, restraining the existing Elders Committee, terming the same to be disputed" as regards election, appears to be contrary to the verdict of the Division Benches, as referred above."

The Court thus stayed the Bar Council order, reasoning that the same would create complications for the newly elected body.

"Once elections have already been held and parties aggrieved by the elections have statutory right to approach appropriate forum, in case the order impugned is allowed to stand, for intervening period during the pendency of the writ petition, it would create further complications and would cause interference in the functions to be performed by an elected body."

It will hear the matter next on March 24.

Advocate Dharmendra Singh with advocates Anil Kumar and Dileep Srivastava appeared for petitioner.

Standing Counsel Surya Bhan Singh with advocate Akhilesh Kumar represented the State.

Advocate Ashok Kumar Tiwari represented the State Bar Council.

[Read Order]

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an application seeking permission to hold Urs (death anniversary of Sufi saint) between February 1 to 3 at a Dargah situated near the Gir Somnath demolition site in Gujarat.

A Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih passed the order after the State government said no religious activities, including Hindu rituals, were being permitted at the disputed site.

The application for permission had been moved in a contempt of court case related to the demolitions. A related case challenging Gujarat High Court's refusal to stay the demolitions in the Gir Somnath district of the State is also pending before the top court.

During the hearing, the counsel representing the applicant submitted that on January 30, the authorities denied permission for Urs, claiming there was no Dargah at the site.

The counsel, however, submitted that annual Urs was being conducted for past many years and lasts only three days.

In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that unauthorized constructions must be demolished, irrespective of religion.

He noted that the main matter was pending before the High Court, adding that the disputed land belonged to government.

The Court then asked whether demolitions had been carried out after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities.

"Did they carry out these demolitions after obtaining permission from the appropriate authorities? They have also demolished temples..."

The counsel representing the applicant in response said,

"We are not aware if those have been demolished. If they have, then that too is wrong."

SG Mehta submitted that land in question belongs to the government and that all unauthorized constructions, including Hindu temples, were demolished.

"There is also the Somnath Trust, and we are not permitting them to conduct any rituals either," he added.

In light of the same, the Court rejected the plea.

The Supreme Court of India will organise a national conference February 1, Saturday, to address the issues faced by district judiciary including identifying bottlenecks in case disposal and devising strategies to reduce backlog of cases at different levels.

The conference will include four technical sessions following introductory remarks by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna.

The first session, chaired by the CJI, will be an endeavour to bring together the experience and knowledge of each High Court and chart the course for judicial reforms for efficient and timely case disposal, and narrowing the gulf between institution and disposal of cases. The session will deliberate upon implementation of Policy and Action Plan- 2024 prepared by the National Court Management Systems (NCMS) Committee, identifying bottlenecks in case disposal and devising strategies to reduce backlog of cases at different levels.

It will also address the issues regarding the functioning of family courts and special courts and explore the feasibility of having evening courts.

Expeditious disposal of cases through Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms and similar issues faced by the High Courts will also be discussed.

The second sessions chaired by Justice BR Gavai will focus on ushering uniformity in case categorization and leveraging technology for justice delivery.

The session will discuss uniform nomenclature and code for each case category, incorporating the use of information technology such as -Digital Courts Software, e-filing, virtual courts, video conferencing, transcription facility etc. along with effective use of e- Sewa Kendras/ e-Kiosks.

Justice Surya Kant will chair the third session aimed at addressing issues pertaining to human resources in the District Judiciary.

Timely and institutionalized recruitment of judicial officers and court staff, continual recruitment/ empanelment of public prosecutors/ legal aid counsel/ legal aid defence counsel and creation of a permanent IT and data cadre in all High Courts and District Courts will be deliberated upon during the session.

The concluding session will be marked by its focus on enhancing professional proficiency. Chaired by the CJI, this session will discuss career progression and continuous performance evaluation of judicial officers, mentoring of judicial officers by inspecting judges as well as State Judicial Academies, establishing common curriculum for training, capacity building and continuing education of judicial officers.

[Read Press Release]

The Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (Kerala Child Rights Commission) has taken suo motu cognisance of the tragic suicide of a 15-year-old schoolboy, allegedly due to ragging.

The boy, a class 9 student, at the Global Public School, Ernakulam was found dead on January 15.

His family alleged that he took his life after enduring relentless bullying and ragging at his school.

Speaking to Bar & Bench, Kerala Child Rights Commission's Chairman, KV Manoj Kumar, confirmed that a suo motu case has been initiated.

"A suo motu case has been registered and notices have been issued to the Kochi District Police Chief and concerned Station House Officer asking for reports. Notice has also been issued to the Principal of the School and the District Child Protection Officer"

According to reports, the Kochi City police had already launched an inquiry into the matter after the boy's mother petitioned the Chief Minister and the State Police Chief, alleging that ragging at the school led to her son's death.

The petition was subsequently forwarded to District Police Chief (Kochi City) Putta Vimaladitya, with the Thrikkakara Assistant Commissioner tasked with the investigation.

Meanwhile, the Hill Palace police has registered a case of unnatural death, and the probe is ongoing.

According to the complaint by the boy's mother, she had informed the school principal about the ragging her son faced and had submitted evidence collected by the family.

However, she claimed that the school authorities, instead of taking action, merely forwarded the complaint to the police while allegedly attempting to suppress the incident to protect the school's reputation.

According to his friends and social media messages retrieved by the family, he was reportedly subjected to bullying both within the school premises and on the school bus.

The petition detailed that he was allegedly harassed, physically assaulted and ragged by fellow students.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday declined to entertain a Public Litigation (PIL) petition seeking prohibition against the release of the movie ‘2020-Delhi’, which is stated to be based on Delhi riots of February 2020 and the anti-CAA protests [Faisal Ali v Union of India and others].

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said the plea was premature after the Union government told the Court that as per Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), the movie producer has not yet applied for the certification.

However, the Court also expressed a hope that the CBFC would take into consideration the objections against the movie.

“In view of above, the petition is pre-mature and therefore, the same, without commenting on the merits, is disposed of with the hope and expectation that the CBFC as and when decides the question of certification, shall be taken into account all the legitimate objections, if made by the petitioner,” the Court ordered.

The counsel representing the petitioner earlier submitted that the movie has certain objectionable scenes which may adversely affect the law and order, especially in the charged atmosphere of ongoing election campaign for Delhi Assembly. 

Advocate Mohd. Jameel represented the petitioner. Senior Panel Counsel Dheeraj Jain with advocate Neha Dalal represented the Union of India.

Pertinently, a similar case was heard by the Delhi High Court today.

In that matter, CBFC told the High Court that it was yet to grant a certificate for the movie.

Justice Sachin Datta after a day-long hearing reserved the verdict on the petitions moved by Sharjeel Imam, who is accused of conspiring the riots, and others.

[Read Order]

The revised system of designating lawyers as Senior Advocates, which was introduced by the Supreme Court in 2017, has done little to curb unsavoury lobbying practices, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said on Friday

The concern was raised before a Bench of Justices AS Oka and Augustine George Masih of the apex court.

While SG Mehta and Jaising have been at loggerheads in the recent past over the Senior designation system, they found a common ground to agree as regards the practice of lobbying.

Jaising recounted that she had filed a petition before the top court that led to the 2017 judgment which eventually led to the revamp of the method by which lawyers are conferred senior gown.

However, despite the new method, lobbying by lawyers continues even now, she said.

"I don't understand why, either in 2017, 2023, or even now, the Supreme Court Bar Association has not come up with their suggestions on this. The High Court should give feedback on the problems they have experienced. A lot of lobbying is taking place even under this system. This petition (which led to 2017 ruling) was filed to end the system of lobbying," Jaising said.

Solicitor General (SG) Mehta agreed.

"Only she could have said this, but it is a fact. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact. And it is really embarrassing. Your Lordships will have to stop this," he said.

The issue was taken note of during the hearing of a a case where the a senior lawyer, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, was accused by an Advocate on Record (AoR) of orchestrating the suppression of facts in a remission plea.

These allegations led the Bench of to take up larger issues, including designation of Senior Advocates and the need to ensure that AoR do not blindly sign off on pleadings like a "post office."

Senior Advocate Dr. S Muralidhar was also appointed as an amicus curiae to assist the Court and suggest reforms, after consulting with stakeholders.

Today, the Court raised concerns over the lack of any provisions in the new point-based system to deduct marks if doubts arise about a candidate’s integrity and character.

The hearing today also threw up questions about whether the requirement for an interview and the marks allotted for it in the revised system needs to be revisited.

SG Tushar Mehta reiterated his stance that the system of interviewing candidates should be done away with as it erodes the dignity of senior lawyers.

The Court acknowledged the concern.

Addressing Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, Justice Oka remarked,

"Let's take your example. When you were designated this system was not there. Now will it be fair to say that the person of your standing, you have done so much of pro bona work, you should be subjected to interview? Is it consistent with the dignity of your standing that five gentlemen they ask questions? 25 marks are assigned for this interaction, say for 5 minutes, 10 minutes ...There are no guidelines on how interaction is conducted."

"It is a test of personality," SG Mehta added.

Jaising replied that the interview process may need to be done away with, but not for the reasons cited by the SG.

"My reasons are different from yours (referring to SG Mehta). It's not about dignity, but rather having such a high weightage on an interview leaves scope for manipulation. I am sorry to be blunt," Jaising said.

She also suggested that no sitting judge should recommend any lawyer as a senior advocate, since some lawyers have access to judges.

"I'm flagging an issue that no judge, no sitting judge should give a recommendation to anybody. In the system earlier, there was unlimited lobbying. There are some people who have access to judges. I am one of those people who believe that there should be no access to judges in the matter of designation at all," she said.

The Court eventually noted that the aim is to ensure that all lawyers get a fair opportunity for being considered for the senior gown, while also ensuring that undeserving people are not designated Senior Advocates.

Jaising replied that the focus should be on this aspect of equality of opportunity, not dignity.

"If you begin at the dignity end and then you are saying that it's an honor, it is not an honor. You are being designated for your competence. So please find a way of judging competence," she said.

She further pointed out that the focus should also shift to the welfare of the client.

"The client is the ultimate beneficiary of your efforts and my efforts and they deserve the best. Let's not talk about our (lawyers') dignity, let's talk about the dignity of the person for whom we are working. They deserve the best. They deserve competent people," she said.

She added that diversity is another factor that must be borne in mind when it comes to senior designations.

"Suppose there is a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe lawyer designated, or somebody else from a minority community. The client may have a comfort level communicating with them. Nothing to do with personal benefit—ultimately, the beneficiary is the litigant," she explained.

Amicus Muralidhar, meanwhile, suggested that the Supreme Court rules could be amended to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of lawyers in case filings, thereby ensuring accuracy in pleadings.

He also informed the Court that several stakeholders agree that the interview part of the revised senior designation system should be done away with, as it was not really serving its intended purpose.

"It is not possible for Your Lordships to garner any meaningful assessment on personality or other traits just with that few minutes of interaction ... I am getting the feedback that the secret ballot system must be introduced, not as an exception, but as the rule," he informed.

Mehta added that he broadly agreed with these concerns, but added an additional concern regarding the interview process.

"If Your Lordships do not know me (a candidate), then within 5 minutes or 15 minutes, what can I convince the court? The very fact that five of the people representative of the bar, Attorney General, and the three honorable judges have to interview the person by itself means that he doesn't deserve to be designated. Therefore, the interview needs to be done away with. And with a view to ensure that the views of each judge are counted and each judge is able to make his decision, secret ballot must be a must," Mehta said.

Having heard the matter at length, the Court eventually reserved the matter for orders.

[Read Live Coverage]

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) told the Delhi High Court on Friday that plea filed by Delhi riots accused Sharjeel Imam seeking directions to postpone the release of the movie ‘2020 Delhi’, is premature since the censor body is yet to grant an exhibition certificate for the movie.

The movie, which is about the Delhi riots of February 2020 and the anti-CAA protests, is slated for release on February 2.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, appearing for CBFC, also told the Court that the petitioners cannot challenge release of trailer of the movie on YouTube since the same is not a subject matter of CBFC certificate and there are alternative remedies under the Information Technology Act and intermediary guidelines to challenge the same.

"As opposed to a cinema, the internet does not create (content); only receives request to play. It is not subject to certification of CBFC," he said.

This stand was echoed by Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta who appeared for the movie makers.

Mehta also said that the movie is only inspired by true events and does not claim that is based on true events.

He further assured that the movie will not be released online without a CBFC certificate.

On the other hand, advocate Warisha Farasat, appearing for Imam, contended that the trailer itself carried comments attributed to Imam including use of Imam's photograph, and the same will prejudice the ongoing trial against him.

"My right to a criminal trial includes this. I urge you to see the trailer. Some comments are attributed to me. My Lord will see my photo. They have not tried to show that it is not me. Everything points to the fact that it is me," it was argued.

Justice Sachin Datta noted the submission by the movie producer and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) that the movie is yet to be certified by the latter and hence, the plea is premature.

After a day-long hearing, he reserved his verdict in the matter.

The movie has been directed by Devendra Malviya and will feature Brijendra Kala, Chetan Sharma, Akashdeep Arora and Siddharth Bharadwaj as lead characters.

As per Imam's plea, the film, which claims to be based on true events, will have grave prejudicial effect on his trial and bail applications in the Delhi Riots matters which are pending before courts in the national capital.

He said that directions should be issued to conduct a pre-screening of the movie, to postpone the release of the movie till the conclusion of trial, and to take down its promotional material till the trial in the Delhi riots case against Imam is concluded. 

Imam plea stated he saw the trailer of the movie in jail and was “extremely concerned” about the prejudice it could cause to his trial, as his character is shown to be playing an instrumental role in the larger conspiracy which is a matter of trial. 

“A film which seeks to portray a false, fabricated and fictional story as a story which is “based on true events” and wrongly brand the Petitioner as a “terrorist” or “traitor” will surely have a grave prejudicial effect on the trial, which is yet to even commence,” the petition said.

The plea further alleged that the trailers of the movie openly portray Imam and the other accused persons as terrorists, even though the accused persons have not even been charged with the offences till date. 

This could prejudice the trial, affect their reputation and social standing, it was contended.

Besides Imam, two others also challenged the release of the movie.

One of them, Sahil Parvez, had lost his father the riots in 2020.

The third petitioner was Umang, an independent candidate in the upcoming Delhi assembly elections from Rajinder Nagar constituency.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), Central Board Of Film Certification (CBFC), Delhi Police, the production house, director and producers of the movie are the respondents to the case.

Advocate Mehmood Pracha, appearing for Pervez, said that the movie claims that it is based on true events and the trailer of the movie has already garnered over 3 lakh views.

Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for the movie makers, said that the movie only says it is "inspired by" true events.

"'Inspired by' does not mean true depiction," Mehta contended.

It was also pointed out that the movie is yet to receive a CBFC certification and hence, the plea is premature and not maintainable.

"Do you not intend to screen? Is that why you have not taken a certification," the judge asked.

"I have applied for certification, have not received," Mehta replied.

Pracha then said that if the trailer being aired is not a part of the story, then he will concede his case.

The Bench then remarked that without certification being issued by CBFC, the prayer seeking postponement is premature.

Advocate Warisha Farasat, appearing for Imam, then highlighted a few dialogues from the trailer as per which a comment is attributed to Imam.

"They have attributed a comment to me. My trial is at a crucial stage, my bail in pending," Farasat said.

"So, your point is that the reference to the petitioner, jeopardizes your case," Justice Datta remarked.

Farasat agreed and also highlighted how depictions in the trailer including a photo points fingers at Imam.

Dr. Amit George, appearing for Umang, sought postponement of the movie till the upcoming Delhi assembly elections are over.

It was argued that release of the movie during the elections will be violative of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) put in place during the elections.

"While the MCC is in operation, it creates disharmony, impacts free and fair elections. postponement is reasonable restriction on freedom of speech before elections. Till the MCC is on, imperative to ensure elections is not skewed," George argued.

However, Jayant Mehta for the moviemaker said that the movie is only inspired by certain events and that the movie makers are willing to change the wording in the disclaimer.

"Is the petitioner a real character or dramatized," the Court asked.

"It is for the CBFC to decide," Mehta responded.

He also stressed that a petition will not lie against a trailer since there are other remedies available.

"There is a remedy elsewhere. Nobody can say bring down a trailer on YouTube without seeking recourse under Information Technology Act," it was submitted.

"Is Sharjeel Imam named (in the movie)," the judge asked.

"He is not the main protagonist and he is not called Imam," Mehta answered.

Mehta reiterated that the plea cannot be entertained since the movie is yet to get a CBFC certificate.

The Court then asked CBFC whether a trailer of the movie can be put out before the movie gets clearance from CBFC.

"What is the CBFC's stand? Can a producer undertake to put a trailer without getting certificate," the judge queried.

ASG Sharma, on behalf of CBFC, said that there is no bar on trailers being put on internet before CBFC certification.

He said that with respect to content put on platforms like YouTube, there is a robust grievance redressal mechanism under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

"There is a presumption of due-diligence by an intermediary. There is a grievance mechanism in place under the IT Intermediaries Rules," it was argued.

He further said that before passing any interim order on take down of trailer, the concerned intermediary will have to be heard.

"If takedown order is given, the intermediaries will have to be heard. The limited challenge to writ jurisdiction is that the government has not done any thing wrong. Defamation will be dealt by civil courts," the ASG underlined.

Mehta meanwhile also assured the Court that the movie will not be released on social media without certification from CBFC.

However, Farasat said that the same will not be sufficient.

"They have used my picture. Just not naming them is not sufficient, They have left no stone unturned to show that it is me," he argued.

The petition by Imam was filed through advocates Ahmad Ibrahim, Talib Mustafa and Ayesha Zaidi.

The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by self-proclaimed godman Nithyananda seeking directions to recognise him as the head of four mutts in Nagapattinam and Tiruvarur districts in Tamil Nadu.

A Bench of Justices R Subramanian and C Kumarappan said the Court cannot interfere with the appointments made by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department.

The High Court further said that it did not see any reason to interfere with a single-judge’s order passed in September last year, which Nithyananda had challenged before the present bench.

On September 9, 2024, single judge Justice M Dhandapani had refused to interfere with the HR&CE department’s decision to appoint another person as the head of the mutts to replace Nithyananda following a rape case and other allegations against him.

At the time, Justice Dhandapani had also questioned Nithyananda staking a claim to the position through a “representative” and had asked how could the Court beleive such representation was valid, given that Nithyananda’s current “whereabouts” were unknown.

However, Nithyananda moved the High Court earlier this month challenging the single-judge’s order.

In his petition filed through advocate Godson Swaminathan, Nithyananda told the Division Bench that the single-judge had erred in denying him relief.

Nithyananda claimed in his appeal that it was “common knowledge” that he resided at Kailasa, "a nation recognised by the United Nations which maintains diplomatic relations with over 50 countries across the world."

Nithyananda also sought an interim stay on the single judge’s order.

However, the High Court said it did not find any merit in his arguments and dismissed the petition.

Nevertheless, the Court added that the trial court hearing the several cases against Nithyananda must not be influenced by the observations made either by the single-judge or the Division Bench of the High Court.

[Read single-judge order]