GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE Vs. PRITISH NANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Guruvayur Temple has been for long, a place of attraction for those having religious devotion. In recent times, around it there has been a sporadic spate of litigation. The present petition has connection with a cross section of such legal actions. A recent publication, made a charge about the politicisation of the religious institution. That is the provocation for the present contempt petiton. It is supported by a statutory sanction, though in relation to a portion of the accusation.

(2.) The brief petition levelled accusation against the Editor and the Reporter of the Illustrated weekly, respectively respondents 1 and 2. Though six charges have been referred to in the Memo of Charges and paragraph 3 of the petition, only charges 1 and 3 are covered by the sanction of the Advocate General.

(3.) This court ordered notice on the petition on 5-8-1985. The 2nd respondent filed his counter-affidavit on 13-9-1985. The case came up for hearing on 3-10-1985. It was partly heard on that day. On 4-10-1985, C.M.P. No. 27622 of 1985 was filed by the petitioner seeking acceptance of the additional affidavit and reception of additional documents produced therein as Exts. P4 to P6. By a Separate order, we have dismissed that application. On 7-10-1985, a petition C.M.P. No. 27825 of 1985 was filed by the 1st respondent seeking permission of the court to file a separate counter-affidavit on his behalf. This petition too has been dismissed by us by a separate order. A reply affidavit has been filed on 12-11-1985 with C.M.P. No. 31232 of 1985, a petition to condone the delay in filing the reply affidavit. That petition has been allowed. The averments contained therein and the materials produced therewith would be considered in the proper setting.