Why not relocate Siddhivinayak to tackle terror threat, asks HC
20 Sep 2007, 0118 hrs IST,TNN
MUMBAI: "Why can't you think of relocating the Siddhivinayak temple?" This was the question Justice J N Patel of the Bombay High Court asked the temple trust on Wednesday as he and Justice Amjad Syyed were confronted with concerns from local residents about the inconvenience caused by the wall surrounding the famous temple.
The judge made this suggestion as he observed that the wall was not adequate protection for the temple in the wake of perceived security threat.
"Is a wall the solution?" the judge asked and remarked that there were so many high-rise towers around the temple that a rocket could easily be fired over the wall.
The judge even suggested that the temple could be relocated to Goregaon's Aarey milk colony. The reference to Aarey perhaps stemmed from the fact that the previous matter before the bench discussed the availability of open space at the milk colony.
Senior counsel C J Sawant, who represented the Siddhivinayak temple trust, said the wall was suggested as a security measure by the police after intelligence experts, including RAW and international agencies, reported a perceived threat to the deity and suggested that safety steps be taken.
The wall is not at the instance of the police nor the trustees, he said, adding, "I am fully aware that a wall is not enough protection."
Government pleader K R Belosay pointed out that the attack on Akshardham was carried out using a jeep laden with explosives and the wall is the only safety measure. Justice Patel did not seem convinced. He observed, "If intelligence agencies work properly then it (such attacks) will not happen."
The exchange between the judge and Sawant went on for a while with the lawyer for the trust saying that, "even a past prime minister was not protected against a terrorist attack. We must not deny the existence of even mythological figures. There is no question of rejecting the devotion of the people in the Siddhivinayak temple where celebrities come walking from Bandra and Juhu as do common people."
Meanwhile, the court allowed petitioner Vinod Desai and other residents who reside in the temple's vicinity to challenge a recent BMC resolution which officially gave its approval to the construction of the multi-crore wall around the temple that took away about half the existing road. The resolution was passed despite about 900 objections received from local residents who pointed out the inconveniences caused by the wall.
However, towards the end of the hearing, the judges asked the state and temple trust to see if there was any other way out to ensure the safety of the temple and, given the technological advances in surveillance methods, to see if the wall could be removed.
MUMBAI: "Why can't you think of relocating the Siddhivinayak temple?" This was the question Justice J N Patel of the Bombay High Court asked the temple trust on Wednesday as he and Justice Amjad Syyed were confronted with concerns from local residents about the inconvenience caused by the wall surrounding the famous temple.
The judge made this suggestion as he observed that the wall was not adequate protection for the temple in the wake of perceived security threat.
"Is a wall the solution?" the judge asked and remarked that there were so many high-rise towers around the temple that a rocket could easily be fired over the wall.
The judge even suggested that the temple could be relocated to Goregaon's Aarey milk colony. The reference to Aarey perhaps stemmed from the fact that the previous matter before the bench discussed the availability of open space at the milk colony.
Senior counsel C J Sawant, who represented the Siddhivinayak temple trust, said the wall was suggested as a security measure by the police after intelligence experts, including RAW and international agencies, reported a perceived threat to the deity and suggested that safety steps be taken.
The wall is not at the instance of the police nor the trustees, he said, adding, "I am fully aware that a wall is not enough protection."
Government pleader K R Belosay pointed out that the attack on Akshardham was carried out using a jeep laden with explosives and the wall is the only safety measure. Justice Patel did not seem convinced. He observed, "If intelligence agencies work properly then it (such attacks) will not happen."
The exchange between the judge and Sawant went on for a while with the lawyer for the trust saying that, "even a past prime minister was not protected against a terrorist attack. We must not deny the existence of even mythological figures. There is no question of rejecting the devotion of the people in the Siddhivinayak temple where celebrities come walking from Bandra and Juhu as do common people."
Meanwhile, the court allowed petitioner Vinod Desai and other residents who reside in the temple's vicinity to challenge a recent BMC resolution which officially gave its approval to the construction of the multi-crore wall around the temple that took away about half the existing road. The resolution was passed despite about 900 objections received from local residents who pointed out the inconveniences caused by the wall.
However, towards the end of the hearing, the judges asked the state and temple trust to see if there was any other way out to ensure the safety of the temple and, given the technological advances in surveillance methods, to see if the wall could be removed.
Labels: Islamic Terrorism
Why not relocate Siddhivinayak to tackle terror threat, asks HC
2 Comments:
Looking at what is happening in India now... it can be predicted that, there will be a time when the government or the supreme court of India will not hesitate to instruct Hindus to leave the country if they fear for terrorist attacks. Because under secularism, only Muslims and Christians have the legitimate right to get state protection.
Thus it explains the logic behind why the Hindus can't seek protection from the State as the one causing terrorism or seeking to destroy the Hindu heritage are the Muslims and Christians who has all the permissible right to do so. Therefore it is Hindus who has to flee if they want to be safe as it is happening to the Hindu pundit in Kashmir today.
Doesn't it make absolute sence now?
Muslims refuse to relocate old structure of Babri Masjid (not of any religious important) in Ayodhya, .
Indian Judiciary want the secred
Hindu Temple worshiped by Millions
of Hindus to be demolished and relocated1111
Post a Comment
<< Home