'Ulterior Motive': Madras High Court Rejects Appeal Against Devotees Lighting Lamp At Stone Pillar Near Thiruparankundram Hill Dargah

The Madras High Court today dismissed a letter patent appeal against the order of a single judge in a contempt petition, permitting devotees of the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light lamps (Karthigai deepam) at the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparakundram hills, which is located close to a dargah.

A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that devotees were permitted to light the lamp since single judge's initial order was not complied with by the temple administration. Such modification in the initial order, the division bench said, was sustainable. It observed,

"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 hearing an appeal preferred by the Madurai's District Collector, city Police Commissioner and Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple against a single judge's order yesterday, permitting devotees to light lamps at the hilltop. State's HR&CE (Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments) Department also entered appearance.

During the hearing, 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 single judge had initially (on December 01) ordered the management of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light 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 premature one, the court had decided to take up the case at 6:05pm (after time for lighting of lamp).

At 6.05 pm, the Court was informed 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.

Today, the AAG 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.

"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 however asked 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 called for the CISF commandant in advance. The Commandant immediately appeared and the judge passed the orders, he submitted.

The AAG further argued that Petitioners went in mob and disrupted communal harmony at the hills by breaking barricades, assaulting policemen.

He also questioned single judge's direction asking CISF to give protection to 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 merits, the AAG submitted that the deepathoon (lamp) was not used for more 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 appearing for HR&CE argued 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.

"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 said.

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 cause of actions was to arise yesterday. Since no arrangement was made, we approached the court," 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 appeal. But could the judge assume that I won't file an appeal. The judge had asked temple to light the lamp, but by asking petitioners to light, 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 structure. It's survey stones. 6 such stones are there. Even in earlier litigation, no such deepathoon is talked about. We have been treated unfairly in 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. 

Click Here To Read/Download Order