Madurai: In a major setback for the M K Stalin-led DMK government in Tamil Nadu, The Madras High Court (Madurai bench), on Tuesday, upheld a single judge’s order that had the lighting of the lamp on a stone pillar near a dargah atop the Thiruparakundram hills in the state.
DMK MPs had moved a notice in Parliament, seeking impeachment of the judge who had passed the original order to light the lamp, accusing him of being biased towards a particular religion.
A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice K K Ramakrishnan, held that order of single judge is not hit by res judicata as the issue was not decided in earlier litigations, while pronouncing the order, as reported by LiveLaw.in.
The bench said that the appellants–including the state authorities, Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah – had failed to produce formidable evidence to show that agama shastra prevented lighting lamp.
“Ridiculous and hard to believe the fear of mighty state that by allowing representatives of devasthanam to light a lamp at the stone pillar on a particular day in a year will cause disturbance to public peace. Ofcourse, it may happen only if such a disturbance is sponsored by the state itself. We pray no state should stoop to that level to achieve their political agenda. Submission that pillar belongs to dargah added another reason for the other side to be skeptical about the offer made by the workforce monitoring mediation,” the bench added.
“Apprehension of law and order was an imaginary ghost created by state authorities for their convenience to put one community against the other under suspicion,” the bench observed.
It further said that the district administration should have taken the issue as an opportunity to bridge the gap between the communities through mediation.
Since the hill is a protected sight, any activity should be as per the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) Act, the Court observed. It said that the light can be lit and the number of persons can be fixed after consultation with the ASI.
The orders were passed on a batch of appeals arising out of the judgment of a single judge on December 1, asking the management of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple at Thiruparankundram in Madurai to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (ancient stone lamp pillar) on top of the Thiruparankundram hills.
Finding that this order was not complied with on the day of Karthigai Deepam, the single judge, on the same day, directed the petitioner devotees to go to the hill and light the deepam themselves. However, the deepam was not lit on that day also and the contempt proceedings are ongoing.
Meanwhile, the state, police, Dargah, and the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board approached the division bench against the order of the single judge.
The State argued that the devotees who moved the single judge seeking lighting of the lamp at Thiruparakundram Hills could not have claimed the same as a legal right, and Article 226 powers cannot be used to change a custom in existence for a long time. The Advocate General submitted that the petition was not a PIL but a private interest litigation wherein court is concerned with the right of petitioner and statutory and constitutional obligation of respondent authorities.
The executive officer of Arulmigu Subramaniam Swamy Temple argued that petitioner may have an interest in the temple and can come to court to protect the right available to him, however no such right can be assumed by the petitioner here.
The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department submitted that it was for the devsthanam to take a call on the lighting of the lamp and also informed the court that the department was willing to consider any application that may be moved by the petitioners before it.
Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah submitted that the minority community was facing difficulty in enjoying their land given to them in 1920. It was submitted that the single judge did not give a proper opportunity to the Dargah to present its case and went on to set up a new case which was not found in anyone’s pleading.
The joint commissioner of the HR&CE department argued that the pillar was not built for lighting Karthigai Deepam but was used by saints who used to reside in the area.
Meanwhile, the Madurai Collector and Police Commissioner argued that the deepathoon (stone pillar) is a figment of the devotees’ imagination, which the judge had latched on to. They highlighted the practical difficulty in lighting the lamp at the deepathoon by climping the steps of the dargah and argued that the peace in the area would be disturbed by the single judge’s order.
