The Allahabad High Court has rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking modifications to the statue of King Nishad Raj and Lord Shri Ram located at Sringverpur Dham in Soraon, Prayagraj. The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Nishad, contended that the current depiction of King Nishadraj did not align with the description in Ramcharitmanas, authored by Goswami Tulsidas. The plea aimed to portray King Nishadraj in a manner more fitting for a king.
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Donadi Ramesh ruled that the matter raised in the PIL falls within the jurisdiction of the Executive and cannot be decided in the current proceedings. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the claim that any constitutional rights of the petitioner or his community had been violated. While dismissing the PIL, the Court granted liberty for the petitioner to seek alternative remedies.
The core argument in the PIL was based on the depiction of the statue, asserting that it deviated from the narrative in Ramcharitmanas. According to the epic, when Lord Rama, along with Lakshmana and Sita, spent a night in a village before embarking on their forest exile, they faced resistance from boatmen who were reluctant to ferry them across the Ganges.
In this narrative, King Nishadraj intervened and offered to transport them across the river, requesting Lord Rama's permission to wash their feet in return. Lord Rama agreed, and Nishadraj, showcasing deep devotion, washed Rama's feet with water from the Ganges, even drinking the sacred water. The writ plea contended that the current statue, depicting a hugging position, did not accurately represent this significant event.
The petitioner and members of his community argued that the existing statue's depiction could be construed as a violation of their constitutional right to worship. They sought essential modifications to the statue to align with the revered narrative from Ramcharitmanas.
The Court's decision to dismiss the PIL was grounded in the belief that the matter required executive intervention rather than judicial determination. The judges emphasized the limitations of the court in adjudicating matters falling within the executive domain. Furthermore, the Court did not find evidence supporting the claim that constitutional rights had been infringed.
By dismissing the PIL but allowing the petitioner the freedom to pursue alternative remedies, the Court maintained a balance between acknowledging the religious sentiments and asserting the need for proper channels in addressing such concerns. This case highlights the delicate intersection of religious beliefs, artistic representations, and constitutional rights, emphasizing the importance of considering these matters within the appropriate legal frameworks and authorities.
TAGS: Allahabad High Court PIL dismissal King Nishadraj statue Lord Shri Ram Sringverpur Dham Soraon Prayagraj Ramcharitmanas
