The lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp (to mark the Hindu festival of lights) on the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the lower of two summits of the sacred Thirupparankundram hillock cannot affect the rights of the nearby Dargah or Muslims in any way, held the Madras High Court recently [Rama Ravikumar v. District Collector (Madurai) & Ors.]

Justice GR Swaminathan also held that the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy temple at Thirupparankundram is obligated to light this lamp at the Deepathoon, in addition to lighting the lamp at the existing site near the Uchi Pillaiyar Mandapam.

The Court noted that the area where the Deepathoon stood has not been vested with the Dargah management, going by a Privy Council judgment from the 1920s. Rather, the said area belongs to the Hindu temple, the High Court found.

"The Deepathoon is at the lower peak … While the mosque is at the highest peak, the Hindu God Subramaniya is at the base of the lower of the two peaks. Deepathoon is not an occupied portion of the Muslims."

Therefore, the Court ordered the temple management to light a lamp on the Deepathoon, while deciding on petitions filed by Hindu devotees seeking permission to light this lamp.

"I direct temple management/devasthanam to light the Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon also apart from the usual places. Karthigai is also a festival of light. Lamps are lit all over the house and not in the pooja room alone. The Karthigai Deepam shall be lit from this year onwards at Deepathoon also. It is the duty of the jurisdictional police to ensure that the direction of this Court is complied with. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City shall see to it that no one comes in the way of enforcement of this order," Justice Swaminathan ordered.

Dismissing objections to the lighting of this lamp on apprehensions that the rights of the nearby Dargah may be affected, the judge said,

"By lighting the lamp at Deepathoon, the rights of the Dargha or the Muslims will not in any way be affected. The Dargah management has not demonstrated as to how they will be affected if the lamp is lit at the Deepathoon. It is not their case that Deepathoon is within the Dargha campus. On the other hand, if the lamp is not lit at Deepathoon, there is always a possibility that the rights of the temple may be jeopardised."

The Court also criticised the temple management for not being vigilant about protecting its rights and leaving it to temple devotees to take up such causes.

"The temple management in the instant case appears to have forgotten the lessons of history ... earlier litigations were launched by the temple management. But now the temple management is on the same page as that of the Dargah. While amity is to be celebrated, rights of both the parties have to be respected. Rights of one party cannot be sacrificed ... Activists and devotees alone are in the forefront and the temple trustees are keeping quiet," Justice Swaminathan said.

The judge added that it cannot be argued that the lamp's lighting could offend the Places of Worship Act or offend anyone's sensibilities.

"If traditions have been abandoned, the temple management has to restore them so long as constitutional morality is not breached. Lighting a lamp is a sacred act. It cannot offend anybody's sensibilities. I also fail to understand as to how the provisions of the Places of Worship Act are attracted to this case. By lighting the lamp at Deepathoon which is meant for that purpose, the structure of the Dargah is not in any way affected. The Dargah is located at a safe distance of not less than 50 meters," the judgment stated.

The Thirupparankundram hill hosts both a temple and a Dargah. The Sikkandar Badhusha Dargha is situated on the highest peak of the hill. The hillock also houses the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy temple.

After disputes cropped up between the Hindu and Muslim sides in the 1920s, the Privy Council eventually ruled that the dargah held rights over three specific areas: the topmost peak containing the shrine/ dargah, the area known as Nellithope, and the flight of steps leading to the dargah.

The rest of the hill was considered to belong to the temple.

The present dispute concerned the lighting of a lamp at the Deepathoon that lay on a lower peak of the hillock, which was near the upper peak where the Muslim dargah was located.

While examining the matter, the Court rejected an argument that the pillar functioned as a flagstaff associated with the dargah, observing that its features matched the description of a lamp pillar.

In passing, while discussing the flag hoisting ceremony at the dargah during a Kandhuri festival (to mark the death of a Muslim saint), the Court also commented that dargah worship itself went against the beliefs of conservative Muslims.

"Dargha worship is an anathema to conservative Muslims. Some of the Hindu practices of worship have been absorbed by the followers of Sufi Cult. Dargha is a concrete manifestation of this," Justice Swaminathan remarked.

The Court went on to note that the Hindu temple's decision to cover the Deepathoon with a cloth in an apparent bid to prevent enthusiastic devotees from lighting the lamp, also supported the conclusion that the structure lay in temple property.

"If the Deepathoon and the adjoining area belonged to the Dargah, the Dargah would not have kept quiet or permitted the temple authorities to put up the covering. This single instance is sufficient to falsify the case projected by the Dargah management," the Court said.

Justice Swaminathan visited the hillock personally as well before delivering his verdict in the matter. He noted that the paths to the dargah do not lead to the Deepathoon and that the two routes clearly diverge.

The Court concluded that this physical separation also shows that the Deepathoon is on temple land and not within the area recognised as belonging to the dargah.

Senior Counsel Anantha Padmanabhan, and T Lajapathi Roy and advocates MR Venkatesh, A Kumaraguru and P Ponnu Rengan appeared for various petitioners.

The State and HR&CE Department were represented by Additional Advocate General J Ravindran, assisted by Special Government Pleader M Lingadurai, along with advocates A Albert James, P Subbaraj and G Suriya Ananth.

The counsel representing other respondents include Senior Counsel Shanmugasundaram and T Mohan, and advocates V Chandrasekhar, J Anandhavalli, G Prabhu Rajadurai, K Govindarajan, DS Haroon Rasheed, Niranjan S Kumar and S Vanchinathan.

[Read Judgment]