Pages Navigation Menu

Official Website of the World's Oldest Living Spiritual Organization

High Court snubs anti-Nithyananda petitioners

High Court snubs anti-Nithyananda petitioners

10th May 2012: In a firm dispensation of justice, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court today dismissed two independent petitions challenging the coronation of H.H. Paramahamsa Nithyananda as the 293rd Guru Maha Sannidhanam (pontiff) of Madurai Aadheenam on 27th April this year.
A habeas corpus petition HCP (MD) No. 570/2002 had been filed on 2nd May by T.Gurusamy Desikar , Manager of Dharmapura Aathinam claiming that the 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam Srila Sri Arunagirinatha Sri Gnanasambanda Desika Paramacharya Swamigal of Madurai Aadheenam was in the illegal custody and under the control of Paramahamsa Nithyananda.
The Hon’ble Court found the petition not maintainable as the 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam is not under the control of anybody, is carrying on his regular administrative duties, is meeting the public and even held a press meet on 2nd May this year, as was clear from the former’s affidavit countering the petition filed the following day.
The HC dismissed the petition, further acknowledging the right of the 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam to appoint his successor as his affidavit stated that he is fully eligible, empowered and competent to manage or appoint any successor of Madurai Aadheenam.
The second was a writ petition (WP (MD) 6607 /2012 dt. 3/5/2012) filed by one T. Solaikannan who claimed to be the Madurai District President of Hindu Makkal Katchi. Alleging that the 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam is under the control of Paramahamsa Nithyananda and his disciples, the petitioner sought to annul the coronation of Paramahamsa Nithyananda and demanded that the State Government take over Madurai Aadheenam.

In the open Court, the Hon’ble Judge clearly stated that the 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam has the authority to nominate his successor. The HC rapped the petitioners saying that this whole case was a ploy to get media publicity and they are not even qualified to be called the aggrieved in the case. The HC also demanded that the petitioner provide proof of his own identity as President of such a Party. The HC further reprimanded the petitioner for abusing the legal process by not filing the written affidavits from all the other parties whom the petitioner had claimed were supporting this petition.

Finding the petition non-maintainable, the HC dismissed the petition forthwith.