Madras High Court Rejects Appeal Against Devotees Lighting Lamp At Stone Pillar Near Thiruparankundram Hill Dargah
The Madras High Court at the moment dismissed a letter patent attraction in opposition to the order of a single choose in a contempt petition, allowing devotees of the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to mild lamps (Karthigai deepam) on the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparakundram hills, which is positioned near a dargah.
A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noticed that devotees have been permitted to mild the lamp since single choose’s preliminary order was not complied with by the temple administration. Such modification within the preliminary order, the division bench mentioned, was sustainable. It noticed,
“This Court finds that the order in contempt was not one altering the earlier order of the court. When the court found its earlier order was not complied with, the court directed the devotees to light the lamp…the order only changed the person who was to perform the function as per its order. The appeal, filed with an ulterior motive, is dismissed.”
The Court was listening to an attraction most popular by the Madurai’s District Collector, metropolis Police Commissioner and Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple in opposition to a single choose’s order yesterday, allowing devotees to mild lamps on the hilltop. State’s HR&CE (Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments) Department additionally entered look.
During the listening to, Justice Jayachandran had orally remarked,
“Communal harmony cannot be achieved by preventing one party from doing their religious function. It can be achieved only by co-existence. Once in a year, if they are lighting without affecting anyone, is there any difficulty in allowing them? 100 years ago, the ways were different, understanding was different. Now it’s different. We don’t even know if these will continue after 100 years.“
For context, the one choose had initially (on December 01) ordered the administration of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to mild the lamp at 6pm on December . A contempt petition was then moved by the Petitioner on December 03, which was taken up at 5pm.
As the Additional Advocate General J Ravindran argued that the petition is a untimely one, the courtroom had determined to take up the case at 6:05pm (after time for lighting of lamp).
At 6.05 pm, the Court was knowledgeable that the order was not carried out. The choose then permitted the petitioner-devotee, together with 10 extra individuals, to mild the lamp themselves. It additionally requested the CISF to protect the Petitioners.
Today, the AAG argued that the one choose, at 5pm itself had prejudged the matter. He argued that the order allowing petitioners to mild the lamp quantities to ‘judicial overreach’ inasmuch as, the attraction in opposition to its preliminary order was pending and no aid, as granted by the Court, was hunted for by the Petitioners of their contempt plea.
“Courts can punish but there is a procedure that needs to be adopted. Court travelled beyond the scope of the contempt petition. That was not even the relief sought for,” he submitted.
Justice Jayachandran nevertheless requested the AAG “When the matter was taken up at 5, you never said that you won’t comply. You said it’s premature. So the court took it up again at 6. What’s the problem?“
Ravindran responded that he was not allowed to make any submissions and the Court had seemingly already known as for the CISF commandant prematurely. The Commandant instantly appeared and the choose handed the orders, he submitted.
The AAG additional argued that Petitioners went in mob and disrupted communal concord on the hills by breaking barricades, assaulting policemen.
He additionally questioned single choose’s path asking CISF to protect the Petitioners. “Where does judge get authority to send CISF? They are not parallel police. They are here to give security to the court. State police are here. For no reason, judge asked CISF to go,” he argued.
On deserves, the AAG submitted that the deepathoon (lamp) was not used for greater than 100 years. “It was accepted by the petitioners & the single judge also. Since 1862 it was not being used. When it wasn’t being used for more than a century, what was the urgency to light it immediately after the single judge order, when the appeal was already pending?“
Counsel showing for HR&CE argued that the one choose, in its order, wrongfully noticed that the temple administration couldn’t have been aggrieved by its preliminary order to mild the lamp, significantly when an attraction in opposition to its order was already pending.
“When any person has a right to appeal, can the judge, within 2 hours, say that they (HR&CE) are not aggrieved. This finding is beyond the scope of the contempt petition. When the single judge is aware about the appeal, this finding is unwarranted,” he mentioned.
Justice Jayachandran at this juncture orally remarked, “The court had passed the order, which was to be done at a particular time. When no arrangement was made, apprehending that order would not be complied, the petitioners approached the court. Then the court made the order. The point now is, if they had informed that intra court appeal, and statutory period for appeal is 30 days, is there a need to move the contempt?
To this, the counsel for the contempt petitioner said that since the cause of action was to arise on 3rd december (day of Karthigai deepam), the petitioners approached the court. “The reason behind actions was to come up yesterday. Since no association was made, we approached the courtroom,” he said.
Senior Advocate T Mohan, appearing for the Dargah also made submissions before the bench. He submitted that the Dargah had intented to appeal against the initial order of the single judge allowing the lighting of lamp and it was not right on the judge’s part to assume that the Dargah was not filing the appeal.
“I’m aggrieved and I intent to file an attraction. But may the choose assume that I will not file an attraction. The choose had requested temple to mild the lamp, however by asking petitioners to mild, he has re-written the order,” he said.
Mohan also argued that the Dargah was treated unfairly in the proceedings. He said that the Dargah was brought into the case only on Monday, and the order came to be passed on the same day.
To this, when the judge pointed out that there should be communal harmony and wondered how the party would be aggrived by lighting of lamps for one day in a year, Mohan submitted that the Deepathoon was not in fact a religious structure and was merely a survey stone. He added that even in the earlier litigations also, there was no mention of a deepathoon.
“It’s not their construction. It’s survey stones. 6 such stones are there. Even in earlier litigation, no such deepathoon is talked about. We have been handled unfairly on this litigation,” Mohan said.
Advocate MR Venkatesh, while making submissions for the contempt petitioner, argued that the Deepathoon had been in existence since earlier times itself. He pointed out that, as per the orders in the earlier rounds of litigation, the lights were permitted to be lit by persons at any other place which was not within 15 meters of the Dargah, which was done in the present case. On the HR & CE’s argument that lights were not lit at the Deepathoon even at the time of British rule, Venkatesh said that customs should not be looked at from the British time. He said that the lighting of lamp at the deepathoon was a practice of ancient Tamils.
