Devotees Have No Legal Right To Light Lamp At Thiruparankundram, Article 226 Power Can't Change Custom: State Tells Madras High Court

The Tamil Nadu authorities told the Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Friday (December 12) that devotees who moved the single judge seeking lighting of the lamp at Thiruparakundram Hills could not have claimed the same as a legal right, and Article 226 powers cannot be used to change a custom in existence for a long time. The division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan were hearing a batch of pleas challenging a single judge's order directing the temple authorities to light the lamp at the stone pillar.The State authorities also filed an appeal challenging the single judge's order in 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 Chief Secretary, ADGP, DCP and impleading the Union Home Secretary.Devotee does not have legal rightDuring the hearing Advocate General (AG) PS Raman appearing for the state authorities submitted that the appeals challenged a common order in 5 writ petitions filed by devotees of the Murugan temple in Thiruparankundram which is a very ancient temple."The issue was regarding rights of devotees for lighting lamp at temple for Karthigai deepam. The temple itself is situated at the foothill of a small 500 foot hill. There's a dargah also in same hill. Traditionally deepam has been lit at the Uchi Pillaiyar temple. This year also it was done. However representation was made by one Rama Ravikumar to temple authorities seeking permission either for temple authorities themselves or to permit him to light deepam in a different place picked by him on what is being now called deepathoon close to a dargah," the AG said.He submitted that the petition was not a PIL but a private interest litigation wherein court is concerned with the right of petitioner and statutory and constitutional obligation of respondent authorities. He said, "Any other issue need not be dragged into the four corners of this room. It's for another battlefield". The AG further said that after the petitioner's representation was rejected another petition was filed asking for a direction that either temple authorities or the devotee himself may light the lamp. "What has to be seen is whether there was a right to demand action and whether the authorities were under duty. The fundamental question is existence of deepathoon," the AG said. He said that since the first round of litigation in 1920, there has been no mention of the deepathoon and the petitioner devotees have to establish that lighting lamp at deepathoon was part of customary practice. Pointing to the history of litigation the court said that in 1920 trial court had said that certain part of hills belonged to devasthanam and other part belonged to dargah and in appeal this order was reversed. He said that in a PIL filed in 1994 seeking a similar relief where court said that traditionally it's being lit at a place, didn't see any reason to change that position. Again in another plea in 2014 the court said that there was no necessity to move the lighting of lamp to any other place; this order was upheld by division bench.He said that in the present petition the single judge asked temple authorities to light lamp at what "he described as a deepathoon, which according to him was the correct place where it should be lit". "Of course he didn't say it should not be lit at the main place but he said in addition to that it should be lit at the other place also. This order is the subject matter of challenge before this court," he added. AG said that there were 4 courts which had applied their minds to the issue and all reiterated the same position that deepam was being traditionally lit there and not anywhere else. He said that the settled position was that any devotee does not have any legal right to demand that lamp be lit in addition to the place where it was being lit.A 226 can't be used to change a custom Pointing to the December 1 order the AG said that while the structure was undoubtedly a stone pillar but questioned if it is a stone lamp pillar. He said:"If some kind of historical acceptable evidence was placed before this court through supporting document that at some point before 1920 it used to be lit there..and for some reason it has been changed. There's no proof available before the judge. Assuming without admitting that there was such proof, for past 102 years parties decided to light lamp at a place, can court exercising power under Art 226 say no, in addition to that you've to light it at other place also? If a custom was broken, constitutional right to worship was affected, court can order under 226? But 226 is not intended to change a custom by creating a new custom". AG said that no one had challenged the temple's property right. "If it was a case involving temple proper dispute, all these would've been relevant. But this...

Devotees Have No Legal Right To Light Lamp At Thiruparankundram, Article 226 Power Can't Change Custom: State Tells Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags