Now it is worshiped by a large number of devotees including villagers.
Chennai, Madras High Court (Madras High Court) expressed surprise as to whether the court could order the Lord to be produced for inspection. Simultaneously, the High Court has pulled up a lower court for ordering the authorities of a temple in Tiruppur district to produce the idol of ‘Moolavar’ (the presiding deity) for verification. This idol of ‘Moolavar’ (the presiding deity) was stolen and was later traced and restored by following rituals and ‘Agam’ rules.
Justice R Suresh Kumar said that instead of doing so, the trial court judges could have appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect/verify the veracity of the statue and record their findings/reports. The judge made the remarks on the lower court in Kumbakonam hearing the idol theft case which had ordered the authorities to produce the said idol belonging to Paramasivam Swamy temple at Siviripalayam in Tiruppur district. Justice Suresh passed the interim order on a plea challenging the possible move by the authorities to remove the idol again from the temple in compliance with the Kumbakonam court’s direction to produce the idol.
According to the petitioner, the idol in the ancient temple was stolen, later the police recovered it and produced it before the concerned court – the special court dealing with cases of idol theft at Kumbakonam. Thereafter, it was handed over to the temple authorities and reinstalled in the temple. Later, Kumbhabhishek was also performed. Now it is worshiped by a large number of devotees including villagers.
read also
On January 6, the judicial officer dealing with the cases of idol theft in Kumbakonam had directed to produce the idol i.e. ‘Moolvar’ for inspection and complete the investigation. When the temple executive officers started removing the statue to be presented in the court, people protested and filed a writ petition in the High Court. The judge, in his order on Thursday, said there was no need to remove the idol and produce it in the court concerned because, as per the belief of the devotees, it is a god.
The Lord cannot be called upon by the Court to be produced merely for inspection or verification purposes, as if it were a material object in a criminal case. The judicial officers could depute an advocate-commissioner to inspect the idol without affecting its divinity or hurting the sentiments of a large number of devotees.(agency)