New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Thursday put hold on the restrictions imposed by the Kerala High Court order on the use of elephants during festivals, such as 'Thrissur Pooram'.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh ordered that any direction issued by the High Court contrary to the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012 would remain stayed.
It asked the management committees of Thiruvambady and Paramekkavu Devaswoms, the two major participants of the 'Thrissur Pooram', to strictly adhere to the 2012 Rules during 'Thrissur Pooram'.
The bench on High Court's directions
The bench orally remarked that the High Court's directions were "impractical" while asking how could the High Court frame rules, substituting the rule-making authority.
The order of the apex court came on appeals of the management committees of Thiruvambady and Paramekkavu Devaswoms challenging Kerala High Court's guidelines for elephant parade.
The management committee said that if the guidelines of High Court are implemented, it will bring the two-century-old festival and a celebration of the state's rich heritage to a "grinding halt".
Also Read |
BJP releases first list of candidates for Maharashtra Polls
The High Court had issued two orders on November 13 and 28 directing temples to strictly adhere to the restrictions imposed on the elephant parade.
The order mandated a minimum distance
The order mandated a minimum distance of three metres between two elephants during parade, a minimum distance of five metres from the elephant and the flambeau (fire pole) or any other source of fire, a minimum distance of eight metres from the elephant to the public, and any percussion display.
"The spatial restriction imposed by the High Court, mandating a minimum distance of three meters between elephants, brings the historic Thrissur Pooram to a grinding halt, as the thousand-year-old venue, the Vadakkumnathan Temple, integral to Thrissur Pooram, cannot accommodate such constraints," stated the appeal against High Court order filed through advocate Abhilash MR.
It added, "This venue, with its traditional layout, has been the epicenter of the Pooram for centuries and the direction by the High Court disregards the significance of the historic and UNESCO-recognised tradition."
The petitioners
The petitioners -- two major Devaswoms, Paramekkavu and Thiruvambady, and principal organisers of the event with eight other temples, submitted that guidelines issued by the High Court were broad and sweeping, and caused last-minute confusion and disruption in the festival's planning.
Also Read |
Ind VS NZ: Rohit Sharma shares thoughts on crushing defeat
"The directives requiring exact distances and crowd control measures were difficult to implement given the scale of the festival and the massive crowd exceeding 5 lakh people.
Implementing these directives within the limited timeframe placed an enormous burden on the petitioners, who had to manage coordination between multiple agencies while ensuring the festival's sanctity and smooth conduct," said the petition.
Advocate Abhilash said the High Court prematurely relying on the findings in Sabarimala Temple case of Supreme Court, has overstepped its jurisdiction and rendered a conclusion that is not only inconsistent with the question pending adjudication before the apex court, but also fails to recognise the deeply rooted cultural and religious significance of the festivities associated with Thrissur Pooram.
The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in 2020 had decided to examine the scope and ambit of the fundamental right to freedom of religion vis-a-vis other rights to citizens, arising out of a 2018 judgement which allowed entry of all-age women to Kerala's Sabarimala temple.
The Devaswoms further stated, "High Court's conclusion disregards the fact that the parading of elephants has been an integral part of the religious traditions of the Devasoms for centuries, and its status as an essential religious practice cannot be arbitrarily denied based on a judgment whose findings are still under judicial scrutiny."
The petitioners sought quashing of November 13 and 28 orders and in the interim they sought a stay on the High Court guidelines and a direction to the State government not to place reliance on these orders while framing new rules, if any, during the pendency of the appeal. (With Agency Inputs)
