Madras High Court Comments on VHP-Hindu Munnani Dispute
In a recent session, the Madras High Court addressed the ongoing tensions between the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Hindu Munnani over the scheduling of idol immersion processions for Vinayagar Chaturthi. Justice V Lakshminarayanan highlighted what he perceived as a “game of one-upmanship” between the two organizations, which share a similar ideological background.
Contention Over Procession Dates
The VHP approached the court seeking permission to conduct their idol immersion processions in the Nilgiris district on September 20, the same day allocated to Hindu Munnani by the local police. The police had designated September 20 for Hindu Munnani’s procession to coincide with the seventh day of the Vinayagar Chaturthi celebrations, which commenced on September 14. Meanwhile, the VHP had been granted permission for their processions on September 19 and September 21.
The court declined to modify these dates, emphasizing the need for coordination between the two factions. Justice Lakshminarayanan remarked, “It’s all a game of one-upmanship. You want to say you are more powerful than Hindu Munnani; he is VHP.” He humorously noted the only difference between the groups was their Vinayagars’ languages, “Your Vinayagar will speak in Hindi, their Vinayagar will speak in Tamil, that is the only difference!”
State’s Rationale for Separate Dates
The State government explained that the allocation of separate dates was due to historical conflicts arising from overlapping events. This year, the VHP planned to immerse 24 idols, while the Hindu Munnani had seven, justifying the two-day schedule for VHP processions compared to one day for Hindu Munnani. The State also cited the logistical challenges posed by large gatherings, pointing to previous events where hundreds of participants attended each group’s procession.
The State emphasized the need to consider the river’s capacity used for immersion, indicating that simultaneous immersions of all idols were not feasible.
Court’s Verdict
The VHP argued that holding their procession on September 20 would ensure greater participation, but the court noted that they approached the authorities after permission had already been granted to Hindu Munnani. Justice Lakshminarayanan advised the VHP, “If you had at least come earlier, we could have given notice to Hindu Munnani and arranged something; you didn’t do that either.” He suggested that the VHP attempt to schedule earlier in the following year or collaborate with Hindu Munnani.
The court also declined to interfere with the police’s arrangements or manage the logistics of the processions, asserting, “I am not running the government, sir. Police require support.” Furthermore, the court questioned the necessity of judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution for such scheduling matters, clarifying that it was not inclined to disrupt the current arrangements set by the authorities.
Special Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani represented the State Government in this matter.
