Can't Achieve Communal Harmony By Restricting Religious Acts: Madras High Court Orally Remarks On Thiruparankundram Deepam Issue

The Madras High Court on Thursday orally remarked that communal harmony can be achieved only when communities co-exist and not when a particular community is restrained from performing their religious acts. 

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan made the oral comments during the hearing of an appeal against the single judge's order yesterday, permitting devotees to light lamps at the stone pillar atop the Thiruparankundram Hills near a dargah.

"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," the court said.

"Your structure is there. Their structure is there," Justice Jayachandran told the parties.

It may be noted that on December 1st, the single judge had ordered the management of the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light lamps in connection with the Karthigai Deepam celebration atop the hill. Alleging that no arrangements had been made to comply with the court's order and to light lamps, the petitioners approached the court with a contempt petition. 

When the matter was taken up at 6:05 pm yesterday, the Court was informed by the petitioners that the order was not implemented. The judge then permitted the petitioner-devotee, along with 10 more persons, to light the lamp themselves. It also asked the CISF to give protection to the Petitioners.

Challenging this order, Madurai's District Collector, city Police Commissioner and Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, have approached the division bench now. 

When the court took up the matter in the morning, the Additional Advocate General J Ravindran argued that the single judge, at 5pm itself had prejudged the matter. He argued that the order permitting petitioners to light the lamp amounts to 'judicial overreach' inasmuch as, the appeal against its initial order was pending and no relief, as granted by the Court, was sought for by the Petitioners in their contempt plea. It was also argued that the deepathoon was not in use for more than 100 years. 

The HR & CE department also submitted that the single judge, in its order, wrongfully observed that the temple administration could not have been aggrieved by its initial order to light the lamp, particularly when an appeal against its order was already pending.

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.  

Senior Advocate T Mohan, appearing for the Dargah, also made submissions before the bench. He submitted that the Dargah had intended 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.

At this point, the court remarked that true communal harmony could be achieved only when the communities co exist and allow the religious activities of each other. 

After hearing the parties, the bench said that it would pass orders.