'Deepathoon' Is Figment Of Judge's Imagination: Madurai Authorities Tell Madras High Court Over Thiruparankundram Deepam Row

Opposing the single judge's order directing the lighting of a lamp at the stone pillar in Thiruparakundram Hills, Madurai district, and police authorities told the Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Tuesday (December 16) that the deepathoon (stone pillar) is a figment of the judge's imagination or devotees' imagination, which the judge had latched on to.In doing so, the authorities told the court that even if there was deepathoon, the single judge could not have direct lighting of lamp there and at best could have asked the authorities to explore possibilities; however, instead the single judge had gone beyond which he could not have done. A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan was hearing a batch of pleas, including those filed by the Dargah management, challenging a single judge's order directing the temple authorities to light the lamp at the stone pillar. For context, the single judge had said that the deepathoon(stone pillar) was not located in the area that belonged to the Muslims, and thus lighting the lamp would not affect the rights of the community.The State authorities also filed an appeal challenging the single judge's order in a contempt plea on December 4th, wherein the judge quashed the prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC. Another set of Appeals also came up before the court challenging the single judge's order of December 9 in the contempt plea, directing the appearance of the Chief Secretary, ADGP, DCP and impleading the Union Home Secretary.Deepathoon a figment of judge's imagination, State has to consider public order: Madurai authoritiesSenior advocate Vikas Singh appearing for Madurai's Collector KJ Praveenkumar and Police Commissioner J Loganathan referred to the 1920 order and said that Nellithope, flight of stairs and entire top of the hill were given to Mohammedans. He said that the decree stated that the Hindus don't have a right to light lamp at the hilltop.Referring to the 1996 court order, which said temple that authorities could only consider lighting lamp anywhere else, Singh said, "The management never felt it necessary to light the lamp anywhere else because they felt there was no need".He argued that the petitioners do not have any fundamental or legal right to ask for lighting of the lamp at hilltop. Singh referred to the single judge's order where the judge had noted that purpose of a deepathoon is to lamp light. He said that the word deepathoon was not mentioned in the representation (by writ petitioners before single judge) or earlier litigations and was bought in by the court.Singh said that the single judge himself said that on climbing steps there's a divergence and the steps are Mohammedan property."Please see the public order perspective. Who's the best to judge public order? State of course. If State falters in the matter of public court, Court can ensure we do not digress from public order. Imagine lakhs of people coming in the narrow steps. The right is not unfettered. State can consider public order," he said.Meanwhile the court orally asked, "Have you informed the court about this difficulty?...". It further said that the single judge had not asked lakhs of people to go but had only asked temple authorities to light the lamp. Singh however said that the devotees would go to the hill if lighting of the lamp is permitted."Deepathoon is a figment of judge's imagination or petitioner's imagination that the judge had latched on to," he said.Country discussing as if Tamil Nadu is against HindusSingh said that the single judge did not consider whether the light can be reached through the steps without disturbing the rights of Dargah, and that communities have been living in peace which is being disturbed by the single judge's order and questioned if it was constitutionally permitted."Today all over India it's being discussed as if Tamil Nadu is against the Hindus. Is that what Tamil Nadu is doing? Judge has made the case beyond the representation and asked them to go and light in addition. What's additional? If the judge feels deepathoon is right place to light, then every Hindu would like to be there. Why would the Hindus compromise on their right?," he said. Singh submitted that this was not a case where the single judge had any material."I don't know where the judge is going. What is he doing in the process. If he wants to contest elections soon, maybe that's a different issue," Singh said. To this the counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was very unfortunate that such a submission was being made.Singh thereafter said that even if it was the deepathoon, the single judge had no business to direct lighting of lamp there."He could have best requested the authorities to explore the possibilities. That's the only thing he could've done. Nothing beyond what was done in 1996. It's a case where he has gone beyond. Completely contrary to his oath saying you light lamp using steps of the dargah," he said.Singh said that even...

'Deepathoon' Is Figment Of Judge's Imagination: Madurai Authorities Tell Madras High Court Over Thiruparankundram Deepam Row

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

'Deepathoon' Is Figment Of Judge's Imagination: Madurai Authorities Tell Madras High Court Over Thiruparankundram Deepam Row

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers