The Madras High Court’s Madurai Division Bench on Tuesday upheld a single judge’s order allowing lighting of a lamp atop the Thiruparankundram Hills in Madurai, allowing the ritual to proceed while dismissing the state government’s objections.
A division bench of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan upheld a December 1 order of single judge Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench, which directed that a lamp be lit atop the hill as part of the Tamil Karthigai Deepam festival.The division bench held that the State and the district administration had failed to establish that the lighting of the lamp was not part of Tamil tradition.
It also rejected the state’s claim that the ritual would disturb law and order, calling the apprehension “an imaginary ghost created by the state for its own convenience.”
The court further observed that instead of treating the occasion as an opportunity to foster peace and harmony, the state had attempted to draw political mileage by pitting one community against another.
“It is ridiculous and hard to believe the fear of the 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. Of course, it may happen only if such a disturbance is sponsored by the State itself. We pray that no State should stoop to that level to achieve their political agenda,” the High Court said.
Also Read:Explain repeated failure over Deepam lighting, asks Madras HC as state moves SC
The court added that since the hill was a protected sight, any activity, including lighting of the lamp and the number of persons permitted to attend such lighting, must be fixed after consultation among the temple administration, the Archeological Survey of India (ASI), and the local police.
On December 18 last year, the bench of Justices Jayachandran and Ramakrishnan had reserved its verdict on a batch of appeals challenging a single judge’s order permitting the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at a stone pillar (Deepathoon) atop the Thiruparankundram Hills, near a dargah.
The bench had concluded a five-day marathon hearing after hearing all sides, including the State, temple authorities, the HR&CE Act (Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act) officials, district and police authorities, devotees, and representatives of the dargah.
TN Advocate General PS Raman had contended that there was no empirical data or historical proof to establish that the stone pillar was a “deepathoon” meant for lighting lamps. He had argued that the origin and nature of the pillar could be determined only through a detailed statutory enquiry, not writ proceedings.
The AG had maintained that the issue involved questions of established custom, which could not be decided on appeal, and stressed that the correct and exclusive remedy lay under Section 63 of the HR&CE Act, a self-contained code for adjudicating religious usage and customs.
The state had argued that the single judge erred by converting a claim of customary right into one of property right and by permitting a “usual festival in an unusual manner.” It also maintained that any decision on customs should be taken by the competent temple authorities, not the court.
The opposing counsels had echoed concerns that the order disrupted long-standing practices and communal harmony, while the dargah representatives said their rights under a 1920 order were being affected.
The devotees had argued that they were seeking revival of an old usage and that lighting the lamp on the hilltop was an essential religious practice, not the creation of a new custom.
About the Author
