Bhubaneswar: An RTI reply from the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration (SJTA) has sparked a debate over the exact number of ‘Brahmin sasana’ villages entitled to representation on the Jagannath temple’s Mukti Mandap, the apex advisory council of Brahmin scholars on matters relating to the 12th century shrine.The confusion arose after the SJTA furnished an apparently contradictory response to an RTI query filed by Puri resident Saroj Kumar Mishra regarding the number of Brahmin sasana villages authorised to sit on the Mukti Mandap, a 16-pillared elevated open platform located on the temple premises.According to the RTI reply on Aug 19 and reviewed by TOI, “As per the temple’s record of rights (ROR), altogether 30 Brahmin sasanas are allowed to sit on Mukti Mandap.” However, the list attached to the reply contains the names of only 22 villages, raising questions about the discrepancy.Sources in the SJTA said 16 villages originally enjoyed representation on the Mukti Mandap. Subsequently, the state govt amended the Jagannath Temple (administration) Act, 1952, and notified the inclusion of 14 additional Brahmin sasanas. However, only six of those newly added villages were reflected in the temple’s ROR.Residents of villages whose names are yet to be incorporated into the ROR alleged that the omission has led to repeated embarrassment and disputes over their entitlement to participate in the Mukti Mandap. “Our sasana was granted representation through a govt notification in 2018. However, the temple authorities have not yet incorporated our village’s name into the ROR. As a result, we often face objections and criticism from some other members while exercising our rights,” said Saroj Kumar Mishra of Pratap Ramachandrapur Brahmin sasana.Deba Rath of Ubhayamukhi Ramachandrapur Brahmin sasana voiced a similar concern. “We urge the SJTA to immediately update the ROR and include our village name so that there is no ambiguity regarding our status,” Rath said. Mukti Mandap president Biswanath Mishra maintained that official recognition must be guided by the ROR. “We should go by what the ROR says,” he told TOI.SJTA officials said the matter would be examined. “We will review the relevant notifications and records and take appropriate steps to remove any confusion and bring clarity to the issue,” a senior SJTA officer said.
