Deepam lighting case: Dargah lawyer alleges natural justice violation, tells Madras HC that Justice Swaminathan shut him out of hearing
The Thiruparankundram hillock temple Karthigai deepam case took an interesting turn on Monday when the counsel representing the Muslim dargah at the hill told a Division Bench of the Madras High Court that single-judge Justice GR Swaminathan had at one point refused to hear the lawyer because he had "irritated" the judge during an earlier hearing of the matter.
The dargah has joined State authorities in challenging Justice Swaminathan's decision to permit Hindu devotees of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy temple (at the lower base of Thiruparankundram) to light the Karthigai deepam (lamp to mark Hindu festival of lights) at a stone pillar near the Muslim shrine.
Representing the Sikkandar Badushah Dargah, Senior Advocate T Mohan today claimed that Justice Swaminathan had refused to give the Muslim shrine sufficient time to file a detailed counter-affidavit in the earlier round of litigation.
Mohan added that when he sought to present preliminary objections in November, he found himself disconnected from video-conference access to the hearing.
He also claimed that Justice Swaminathan said that he would prefer to hear other parties to the writ case first as Mohan allegedly "irritated him" earlier.
Addressing a Bench of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan, Mohan said,
"(When it was mentioned that I have preliminary objections, I have a right to begin arguments. I am disconnected from VC). And the learned judge says, ‘he (Mohan) irritated me on the last occasion. My blood sugar will go high. Therefore, I don't want to hear him today. Let others begin."
Mohan added,
"Am I to be cut out from hearing? None of this is reflected in the single judge order ... I have no option but to vent my angst at how I was treated before a Division Bench. I don't believe in going behind closed doors and making representations. Whatever grievance I have, I have stated in open court."
The Division Bench today advised Mohan to focus on the merits of the judgment under challenge, assuring that it would come back to any procedural irregularities if needed later.
Mohan, however, maintained that the manner in which the writ proceedings before the single judge was "fast-tracked" in violation of rules was relevant.
"I am taking exception to fast-racking of the writ petition in violation of the law," the senior lawyer said.
Mohan added that usually, an impleaded respondent (the dargah, in this case) should have been given at least eight weeks to file a response. Justice Swaminathan, he said, shrunk this timeline to three days without recording in any of his orders that Mohan had sought more time.
He also claimed that Justice Swaminathan's observation in his ruling that he had invited "all counsel" to accompany him for a visit to the hillock, before passing his order, was not strictly true as the dargah was not a party to the case at the time.
"He (Justice Swaminathan) says he made open invite to come and attend by darshan (visit to the hillock). I (Dargah) was not a party then. So that open invitation was actually a closed door invitation, because I was not a party on that day," Mohan said.
Representing the Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, Senior Advocate N Jothi argued that Hindus cannot stake a claim on the deepathon.
He said that there were texts to indicate that the pillar was used for lighting purposes when Digambaras (Jain monks who practice nudity and live away from the public eye) convened atop the hill.
"This kind of pillar is seen at least at four places in Madurai. All this should have been brought before learned single-judge. So, these pillars do not belong to Hindus .... There is prohibition by Act against conversion of pillar's usage. It was not made for Hindus. It was made by someone else," Jothi added.
Both senior counsel alleged that the attempt to light the lamp was part of an attempt to incite unrest at Madurai.
"What will happen if this is allowed? Will anyone keep quiet? .... I want peace in the State. ... 25 years, several Karthigai deepams come and gone ... Suddenly, like Rip Van Winkle, they want (this lamp lit) ... Heavy costs must be imposed on petitioners, payable to Lord Murugan itself," Jothi said.
"Being from Madurai, I can tell lordships there have never been any problems between Hindus and Muslims there. There are some vested interests. Every year, some issue or protests will happen only with Hindu Makkal Katchi, Hindu Munnani - nobody else," Mohan added.
Another lawyer representing the dargah added that this case involved disputed questions of fact which ought to have been settled in a civil court and not the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
"I do not want to go into questions of fact. I don't want to make a bold claim that the pillar is on dargah property. I can say, it can only be seen by a civil court without prejudice to anyone. Civil court could've appointed a commissioner, who could have visited the site, and evidence led," he said.
He added that forcing the dargah to give up its property rights would leave a scar.
"Had a request come from temple authority or Hindu people at large (to light the lamp at the thoon), we would have considered ... I said let us open a dialogue. Muslims, they are welcoming (Hindu processions) in some areas. When we see such news, we feel happy. We have to spread happiness. Let us convince them by dialogue or civil litigation. Not by such an order like it was passed. It will leave a scar. I cannot be forced to give up my land," he argued.
The Bench, meanwhile, hinted that it was hoping to come out with a holistic solution that could help resolve the conflict for all sides.
The other counsel who argued against the single-judge ruling today included Senior Advocate AK Sriram.
The hearing will continue tomorrow.