Read Time: 04 minutes

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday asked a revised petition to be filed after a preliminary hearing on the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking restoration of the Dwadash Madhav Temples located in Prayagraj and construction of a pilgrim route (Parikrama marg) to reach there.

The order was passed by the division bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice JJ Munir who set July 22 to hear the plea moved by Hari Chaitanya Brahmchari of Tikarmafi Ashram and another through Advocate Vijay Chandra Srivastava.

The petition states that the twelve Madhav temples in Teerthraj Prayag have immense significance and for the convenience of saints, sages, and pilgrims, it is necessary to renovate these temples and make them easily accessible through a path (Parikrama marg).

As per the plea, Madhav is the principal deity of Prayagraj and in one of the 18 Purans, the Brahm Vaivartya Puran, details of the Dwadas Madhav have been described. 

The plea states that it is believed that after the creation of the universe, Supreme Father Brahma established the twelve Madhav which are  6 Antervedi Madhav (Veni, Vat, Anant, Asi, Manohar, Bindu Madhavas), 4 Madhyvedi Madhav (Adi, Chakra, Gada, Padam Madhavas) and 2 Bahirvedi Madhav (Sankat Haran, Sankh Madhavas) located at different places in Prayagraj city.

The plea claims that saints and sages take a Parikrama (visiting) of the twelve Madhav temples from ancient times but due to taken hindrance as well as no proper way, the saints and devotees are prevented to take darshan and parikrama, and as such their religious sentiments are hurt.

Therefore, the plea seeks removal of illegal encroachment over the path reaching the temples, construction of a pilgrim route, and grand temples of the Dwadash Madhavas.

The bench asked the petitioners' counsel to file a revised petition adding up details of the temples and their significance in the plea itself rather than attaching affidavits for the same. 

Case Title: Hari Chaitanya Brahmchari Ji Maharaj and another v. State of UP and Ors.