Group of male devotees protest dress code, enter temple without removing shirts in Kerala
Pathanamthitta (Kerala), Mar 24 (PTI): A group of people entered a Lord Ayyappa temple here on Sunday without removing their shirts, protesting against the long-standing practice that requires male devotees to do so before entering the shrine.
Visuals showed the protesters — members of the SNDP Samyuktha Samara Samithi — forming a queue in front of the shrine in Perunadu managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and offering prayers without removing their shirts.
The protest went off without incident, as neither the police nor the temple management objected.
The protesters later demanded a permanent end to the practice of requiring male devotees to remove their upper garments.
"The protest was peaceful. The temple management had already clarified that they had no objection if anyone entered the shrine without removing their shirts, though devotees traditionally followed the practice," a police officer said.
The protest took place months after a prominent monk called for the practice to be abolished in all temples across the state.
Swami Satchidananda, head of the renowned Sivagiri Mutt founded by social reformer Sree Narayana Guru, had described the practice as a social evil and urged its abolition, last year.
He claimed that the tradition of removing upper garments was originally introduced to verify whether men wore the "poonool" (the sacred thread worn by Brahmins).
The Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam is an organisation representing the numerically strong Ezhava community.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC to hear plea challenging blocking of YouTube channel '4PM' on May 13
New Delhi, May 10 (PTI): The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a plea seeking quashing of an order blocking YouTube channel '4PM' on May 13.
The apex court on May 5 sought responses from the Centre and others on the plea filed by Sanjay Sharma, the editor of digital news platform '4PM', which has a subscriber base of 73 lakh.
The plea claimed that the blocking was effected by the intermediary pursuant to an undisclosed direction allegedly issued by the Centre citing "vague" grounds of "national security" and "public order".
As per the top court's cause list for May 13, the plea is slated to come up for hearing before a bench of justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih.
The plea claimed that the blocking was a "chilling assault on journalistic independence" and the right of public to receive information.
The petition, filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, said no blocking order or underlying complaint was furnished to the petitioner, violating both statutory and constitutional safeguards.
The plea also contended that it was a settled law that the Constitution does not permit blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard.
"'National security' and 'public order' are not talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny," it said.
The action was not only ultra vires the parent statute, but also strikes at the core of democratic accountability ensured by a free press, the plea said.
"The blocking is a chilling assault on journalistic independence and the right of the public to receive information," it said.
The plea sought a direction to the Centre to produce the order with "reasons" and "records", if any, issued to the intermediary for blocking the channel.
It also sought quashing of Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
Rule 16 mandates strict confidentiality regarding all requests, complaints and actions taken under the rule.
The plea also sought striking down and/or reading down Rule 9 of the Blocking Rules, 2009, to mandate issuance of a notice, opportunity of hearing and communication of a copy of the interim order to the originator or creator of the content prior to passing a final order.
It said the petitioner's YouTube channel was blocked without giving any fair opportunity to clarify or justify his case.
