Madras High Court upheld a single-judge order permitting devotees to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp at the Deepathoon on Thirupparankundram hill. The Court criticised officials for blocking the ritual and warned of possible contempt action.
The Madras High Court on Thursday upheld the recent order of a single judge that allowed devotees of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp on the Deepathoon, a stone lamp pillar located on the Thirupparankundram hillock near a Dargah.
On December 1, Justice GR Swaminathan had ruled that the temple is responsible for lighting the lamp on the Deepathoon as well as at the existing site near the Uchi Pillaiyar Mandapam.
He clarified that allowing this ritual will not affect the rights of the nearby Dargah or the Muslim community in any way.
Since this order was not followed by the authorities, the single judge passed another order on December 3 permitting the devotees themselves to light the lamp and also directed that they be given security by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) attached to the Madurai Bench of the High Court.
This second order was challenged by the District Collector and the City Police Commissioner through a letters patent appeal.
A Division Bench of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan dismissed the appeal and strongly supported the single judge’s decision. The Bench noted that the authorities had deliberately chosen not to follow the earlier directions of the Court.
The judges observed,
“The learned Single Judge, having found that the State machinery willfully decided not to implement the direction citing pendency of the unnumbered appeal, called upon the assistance of CISF for enforcing the directions. The situation has arisen in which the State Police unable to carry the constitution mandate. There is no illegality in taking the assistance of central force for the said purpose, if the circumstances warrant.”
The Bench further stated that the appeal seemed to be filed only to avoid possible contempt proceedings. It remarked,
“Therefore, we find this appeal filed with ulterior motive to preempt contempt action is liable to be dismissed.”
Thirupparankundram hill is home to both the ancient Subramania Swamy Temple and the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah, located at the highest point of the hill.
Historical disputes in the 1920s between Hindu and Muslim groups had led to a Privy Council decision that granted the dargah rights over three specific areas: the highest peak containing the shrine, a place called Nellithope, and the flight of steps leading up to the dargah.
The rest of the hill was declared temple property. In the present matter, the dispute was about the lighting of the Deepam lamp at the Deepathoon, which is located on a lower peak near the upper peak where the dargah stands.
After examining the land details, the single judge had concluded that the Deepathoon stands on temple land and is not part of the area legally belonging to the dargah.
While hearing the appeal, the Division Bench noted that despite the High Court’s clear order allowing devotees to light the lamp, the District Collector issued a prohibitory order preventing devotees, including the original petitioner, from reaching the hilltop.
The Bench expressed its concern about this conduct but decided not to examine the issue in detail at this stage.
The Court observed,
“We failed to understand that when there is specific order by the High Court to permit the petitioner and others, 10 in numbers, to light the Deepam at the Deepa Thoon, how this prohibitory order can be put against them and whether the executive order passed under Section 163 of BNSS will prevail over the judicial order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be decided. We wish this will be decided at the appropriate time.”
Since the appeal lacked merit, the Division Bench dismissed it and left it to the single judge to decide whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the concerned government officials for failing to follow judicial directions.
Case Title:
KJ Praveenkumar, IAS & Anr. v. Rama Ravikumar & Anr.
Read More Reports On Special Intensive Revision
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
