The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant an urgent hearing in a matter arising out of the Hanuman Janmabhoomi dispute, after concerns were raised regarding the Karnataka High Court’s decision to relist the case following the pronouncement of its judgment.
The issue was mentioned before the Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi through an oral mentioning outside the regular cause list. The counsel appearing in the matter sought immediate intervention from the Apex Court on the grounds that an unusual procedural situation had emerged before the Karnataka High Court.
According to the submissions made before the Supreme Court, the High Court had reserved its judgment in the dispute and subsequently pronounced the verdict in open court. However, after the pronouncement, the matter was allegedly listed again for further hearing. The petitioner argued that once a judgment is pronounced and signed, the court ordinarily becomes functus officio, a legal principle under which a court ceases to exercise jurisdiction over a matter except in circumstances specifically recognised by law.
Seeking urgent relief, the counsel contended that the relisting of the matter after the delivery of judgment raised serious procedural concerns and warranted immediate consideration by the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court, however, was not inclined to entertain the request for urgent listing. During the hearing, the Bench observed that the Karnataka High Court possessed the authority to address issues arising from a judgment through a procedure commonly referred to as “being spoken to”. Under this practice, the court may clarify, correct or deal with certain aspects of a judgment where circumstances so require. Taking note of this position, the Supreme Court declined to intervene at this stage and rejected the request for urgent listing of the matter.
The controversy arose in 2021 from competing claims over the birthplace of Lord Hanuman, after the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) in Andhra Pradesh and the Sri Hanumad Janmabhoomi Teertha Kshetra Trust in Karnataka each asserted that their respective sites were the deity’s birthplace.
The TTD maintained that Tirumala’s Anjanadri Hill was the birthplace of Lord Hanuman. To support its position, it constituted a committee comprising scholars and researchers who examined Puranic literature, archaeological material, inscriptions and other historical sources. Based on its study, the committee concluded that available evidence identified Tirumala Anjanadri as Hanuman’s birthplace.
On the other hand, the Sri Hanumad Janmabhoomi Teertha Kshetra Trust has asserted that Anjanadri Hill near the UNESCO-recognised heritage region of Hampi in Karnataka is the actual birthplace of Lord Hanuman. The Trust constituted a separate panel consisting of Vedic scholars, historians and scientists to examine scriptural texts, inscriptions and historical records.
The panel relied on references in texts such as the Skanda Purana, Varaha Purana, and Brahmanda Purana to support its claim that the region associated with present-day Hampi was the birthplace of the deity.
The dispute was further complicated by a third claim advanced by the Ramachandrapura Mutt in Karnataka. The Mutt contended that Gokarna, located on the state’s coast, was the true birthplace of Lord Hanuman.
According to the Mutt’s interpretation of the Valmiki Ramayana, references in the epic indicated that Hanuman was born in Gokarna, while Anjanadri in Kishkindha was associated with his later activities and therefore constituted his karmabhoomi rather than his janmabhoomi.
The post Supreme Court declines urgent hearing on Hanuman Jamabhoomi dispute appeared first on India Legal.