‘New religious tradition’ manufactured in Deepam order: TN

THe Tamil Nadu regime on fri told the Madras heights margaret court that its bingle bench of justice GR Swaminathan, in directing through its December 1 order that a lamp be lit atop the Thiruparankundram hills, had manufactured a “new religious tradition” out of his own whim and had strayed far outside judicial bounds.The state told a bench of justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan that it had deferred from implementing the December 1 decision for the same was “legally untenable and incorrect”.The state’s remarks comes amid the ongoing controversy surrounding the lighting of the lamp atop the Madurai hill. The matter has triggered a wider political and judicial storm, with the Opposition INDIA bloc lawmakers, led by the DMK, submitting an impeachment motion in the Lok Sabha seeking Justice Swaminthan’s removal on grounds of “judicial overreach” and alleged bias over his orders in the case.Appearing for the state, Advocate General PS Raman on Friday cited land deeds and previous judgments of the high court dating back to the 1990s to argue that the temple had followed a century-old practice of lighting the Karthigai Deepam only at the Uchi Pillaiyar temple. Yet, justice Swaminathan, acting solely on the petitioner’s request, had directed the Devasthanam to light the deepam atop the Thiruparankundram hills, near the Sikkander Badusha dargah.The jurisdictional police were also directed to ensure compliance with the order, Raman said.The Advocate General further said the dispute over lighting the lamp at a second location near the dargah was a “private interest litigation”, not a matter of public concern, and warned that altering established customs could disturb communal harmony on the hill.Raman made the arguments while the division bench of justice Jayachandran and Ramakrishnan was hearing a batch of appeals filed by the Madurai district collector, the state HR&CE Department, the Waqf Board, dargah authorities and others, asking that the high court examine the correctness of multiple orders passed in the matter by justice Swaminathan between December 1 and 9, including directing temple authorities to light the lamp at the new location, quashing prohibitory orders, and summoning senior state officials.He reiterated that the single judge had exceeded writ jurisdiction by effectively creating a new custom or tradition, without any historical or evidentiary basis. “For over 100 years, the deepam has been lit only at the temple. There was not even a single piece of paper or any other evidence before the court to show that the stone pillar is a deepathoon, or that lamps were ever lit there,” Raman argued. The court, Raman said, cannot use Article 226 to “invent” new religious practices or “compel” the temple to adopt them.The Advocate General even took the bench through the 1920 litigation over the Thiruparankundram hills, where the Privy Council ultimately upheld a civil court’s finding that portions of the hill belonged to the Devasthanam while others belonged to the dargah.Raman also cited four earlier decisions of several division benches of the Madurai bench of the high court, passed between 1996 and 2017, where the court had rejected identical pleas seeking to introduce or shift the lamp lighting site, consistently holding that such deviations could disturb peace near the dargah.“Not once in the last 100 years of litigation, not in 1920, not in 1994, not in 2014, has the term deepathoon appeared. There is simply no historical foundation for it,” Raman said. Courts had repeatedly noted, he added, that for “decades both communities had coexisted peacefully” and carried on their respective religious practices without interference.In contrast, the present orders were passed just two days before the festival, without giving authorities any time to consult stakeholders or assess the law-and-order implications, Raman said.He further argued that the state’s primary duty was to uphold public order and, hence, the right to worship of any community “must yield to public order”.Raman also referred to the 1996 judgment in a PIL filed by the Hindu Bhaktha Jana Sabai, where the single judge held that the deepam must continue to be lit only at the traditional location, especially with just three days left for the festival. The order, later affirmed in subsequent proceedings, left it open to the temple authorities to consider any change of site in future years, after consulting the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department and other experts.“That is the lawful route. Not a judicial direction, two days before Karthigai, compelling lighting at a place whose very existence as a ritual spot is unproven,” he argued.The division bench also heard senior advocate G Masilamani for the executive officer of the Arulmigu Subramaniyaswamy Temple, one of the temples on the Thiruparankundram hills. The lawyer submitted that the petitioner had not asserted any enforceable legal right, nor sought permission specifically for lighting a lamp at the stone pillar.Senior Advocate R Shunmugasundaram, appearing for the HR&CE department, added that claims of “age-old custom” must be established through evidence and cannot be assumed.When the bench asked why devotees should be denied the opportunity to light a lamp if the law otherwise permits it, he responded that any such grievance would have to be placed before the police commissioner and not enforced through writ jurisdiction in the absence of proof.The high court will continue hearing the arguments on December 15.Simultaneously, justice Swaminathan has been presiding over contempt proceedings after the Tamil Nadu government did not comply with his December 1 order and subsequent order on December 3, directing first the temple authorities, and then, some private individual devotees, to light the Karthigai Deepam at the stone pillar.TN government anti-Sanatan: ThakurBJP MP Anurag Thakur accused the Tamil Nadu government of being hostile to Sanatan Dharma. Speaking during the zero hour, Thakur said, “One state in India has become a symbol of anti-Sanatan Dharma. Their ministers are making statements against Sanatan Dharma.”Referring to the row over lighting the Garudagiri Deepam at Madurai’s Thiruparankundram temple, Thakur alleged that Tamil Nadu administration had ignored a Madras high court directive. “The Madurai bench of Madras high court came down strongly on the Tamil Nadu government accusing officials of deliberately ignoring its order,” he said. “There are lathis for the devotees. Hindus are lathicharged, despite the court order they are not allowed to light the lamp.”