Senior Advocate Vikas Singh criticized Justice G.R. Swaminathan’s order allowing a Deepathoon lamp at Thiruparankundram during Karthigai Deepam, arguing it created a religious right without scripture, history, or legal basis, and threatened public order.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government and police authorities, on Tuesday launched a strong critique of a single-judge order of the Madras High Court that permitted the lighting of a lamp at a stone pillar, described as “Deepathoon” on Thiruparankundram hill during the Karthigai Deepam festival. Singh argued that the order amounted to judicial overreach, created a religious right where none existed, and posed serious public order risks.
The remarks were made before a division bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan, which is hearing appeals against the December 1 order passed by Justice G.R. Swaminathan.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Examines Order Allowing Karthigai Deepam At Thirupparankundram Hill
The appeals have been filed by:
- Tamil Nadu government (district administration and police),
- Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,
- Arulmigu Subramaniya Swami Temple, and
- Sikkandar Badusha Dargah.
All appellants have raised concerns relating to public order, settled property rights, and the absence of any legally recognised religious custom permitting the lighting of a lamp at the disputed site.
Singh argued that historical records and binding judicial decrees clearly establish that there was no custom of lighting a lamp at the stone pillar on Thiruparankundram hill.
Referring to a 1923 decree, Singh submitted that although the hill was broadly held to belong to the Devasthanam, specific areas, including the Nellithope region and the steps leading to the dargah, were conclusively recognised as being under Muslim rights.
According to Singh, the decree explicitly recorded that:
- Attempts by Hindus to light a lamp at the top of the hill were restrained, and
- There was no ancient or established religious practice supporting such an act.
“There is no agama, no shastra, and no legal material to support this claimed religious right,”
Singh told the court.
He further argued that even the term “Deepathoon” does not appear in any earlier judgment or historical record and surfaced for the first time only in the writ petition that resulted in the impugned order.
Singh emphasized that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee religious freedom, are expressly subject to public order.
He warned that allowing access to the stone pillar, located on the route to the dargah, could lead to serious law and order problems, especially on Karthigai Deepam, when lakhs of devotees might attempt to reach the narrow hilltop path.
“How is crowd regulation even contemplated in an area that is narrow and historically recognised as belonging to the dargah?”
he asked.
The most pointed criticism was reserved for the direction in the order permitting the lighting of an “additional lamp” even though no such relief was sought by the petitioner.
“What is this ‘additional lamp’ and where does it come from?”
Singh questioned, calling the direction an instance of clear judicial overreach.
He argued that, at most, the court could have directed the authorities to examine feasibility, but had no jurisdiction to mandate a religious act at a disputed site.
At one point, Singh remarked:
“I wonder what the judge was doing in this process.”
He contended that the order created public disorder instead of preserving it and was unsupported by any material showing the existence of a Deepathoon or a valid religious practice associated with it.
Singh’s comments drew an objection from opposing counsel, who termed them unfair. In response, Singh said the gravity of the situation would soon become apparent and made remarks suggesting that the judge would be seen “contesting an election very soon”.
He also referred to an impeachment notice reportedly moved against Justice Swaminathan, stating that while he refrained from commenting on it, it was legitimate to question whether the judge had adhered to constitutional duties.
The division bench did not immediately respond to these remarks and continued hearing arguments on the merits of the appeals.
The bench indicated that it would also examine:
- The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board’s earlier offer for court-monitored mediation, and
- The perspective of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) regarding the disputed site.
Further hearings are expected as the court weighs historical records, constitutional principles, public order concerns, and competing religious claims surrounding Thiruparankundram hill.
Case Title:
The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramanian Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, Madurai vs. Rama Ravikumar and Others with connected matters
Read More Reports On Karthigai Deepam