HC reserves orders on PIL seeking govt control of Saivite mutt

Mutt Counsel Veerakathiravan submitted that serious allegations had been made against the present Mutt head without any proof, and the petition had been filed for publicity.

"There is no evidence or witness to the serious allegations made against the Mutt head as well as Nityananda," counsel submitted.

He also contended that Nityananda was not a successor to the present pontiff, but had been appointed junior pontiff.

Peter Ramesh Kumar, counsel for petitioner M Solaikannan, alleged that Tamil devotees had been replaced by devotees from Karnataka after Nityananda was sworn as pontiff "against all rules and customs" of the Mutt.

Besides Nityananda is also facing "serious sex scandal charges", Kumar contended.

His appointment as junior pontiff had not been approved by other Mutt heads, he said, alleging that the Nityananda group is trying to take control of the Mutt having large properties.

The counsel alleged that Nityananda was not a celibate and not competent to become the mutt head. The present mutt head had been administered some drug and he had agreed to make Nityananda as the Mutt head only under the influence of drug, Kumar alleged.

The Counsel for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment department, meanwhile, said the department is not competent to decide whether Nityananda had been appointed under the influence of drug.

After hearing the counsel, Justices D Hariparandhaman and Satyanarayana reserved their orders.

The appointment of self-styled guru Nityananda as the head of the 1500-year-old Saivite Mutt here, has triggered a controversy. Many religious leaders and political outfits have protested the appointment.