'State Not Secular, Tilted Against Us': Devotees Urge Madras High Court Not To Relegate Thiruparankundram Deepam Issue To Authorities

Opposing the appeal preferred by State and Madurai authorities against single judge's order directing lighting of a lamp at the stone pillar in Thiruparakundram Hills, the devotees urged the Madras High Court on Wednesday (December 17) not to relegate them to the authorities as they have "undisguised scorn and contempt towards" their faith. The devotees submitted that the State authorities were trying to placate one set of rights instead of being secular and if relegated, the devotees did not feel that their rights would be safe in the authorities's hands. 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 including the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department 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.State needs to be secular and protect my rights: DevoteesDuring the hearing Senior Advocate S Sriram appearing for respondent Paramasivam said, that the appellant's (State, authorities, dargah) argument that there has never been a practice of lighting lamp anywhere else other that Uchi Pillaiyar temple is a stand which is aimed towards "placating one set of rights and in pursuance of a clear policy or subjugation another"."State keeps surrendering, reiterating to maintain status quo. Protect yourself. Live for another day. Don't assert your right. This is the stand of the State who is the guardian, who needs to be secular and fiercely neutral to protect my rights under Article 25," he said.The court however orally remarked that the writ petitioners have not taken the alternative remedy and approached the court, and is now saying that the State has closed mind, adding that the State is open to an alternate remedy.Sriram however said that the temple's executive officer (EO) and Temple Board which chose to be a spectator, is now asking the devotees to come back to it."It's like I've been wounded by same person and remedy can also be given by same person," he added.Dept speaking in multiple voices, undisguised scorn & contempt towards my faithSriram said that the counsel arguing for temple and authorities first said there's no evidence to say it's a deepathoon, then they said that it is a granite pillar; then they said that it is an ASI structure, thereafter that it is a jain structure; and yesterday the Wakf Board argued that it belongs to them. He thus said that the appellants' arguments do not have bonafides and are made only to create a right when none exists."This is not a case of State resisting plea of respondents. It's the state in solidarity with the contesting respondents and the department speaking in multiple voices creating a claim. Don't send me to the (HR&CE) Commissioner who has undisguised scorn and contempt towards my faith. I don't think my rights are safe at the hands of the authorities," he said.Devotees' right of worship part of Article 19, public order plea not a bogeySriram said that the right to worship is not to be concised within the confines of Article 25 but it is a dimension of the devotees right to expression under Article 19. Referring to Justice Chelameswar's opinion in the 2017 KS Puttaswamy judgment Sriram said, "Plea of public order comes from district administration who have not voiced their grievances before the single judge. Plea of public order is not a bogey or an alibi or a gate-pass to avoid scrutiny. In relation to the higher threshold that state needs to answer to the conscience of the court, the formulation is in Shreya Singhal's case". Duty is on State, which cannot equate itself to citizensHe said that the test is if it is something that should defeat the tempo of life of the community and the potential of realisation of such right ought to be of such an order which affects the lives or way of lives of the community at large. "I look for pleadings, some kind of elaboration in the grounds of appeal. Except indicating that state has to preserve constitutional order and duty of public order, it is cited as a defence to wriggle out the state's constitutional duty to be a neutral arbitrator. It can't be a mere coinage in grounds of appeal or happenstance to defeat the respondents claim in a writ appeal. It's a duty on the State. Inalienable fundamental right of citizen. The State says...

'State Not Secular, Tilted Against Us': Devotees Urge Madras High Court Not To Relegate Thiruparankundram Deepam Issue To Authorities

Upasana Sajeev

Tags