Madras High Court upholds order permitting devotees to light lamp on Thirupparankundram summit

The Madras High Court on Thursday upheld a recent order of a single-judge permitting devotees of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy temple to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp (to mark the Hindu festival of lights) on the Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thirupparankundram hillock near a Dargah [KJ Praveenkumar, IAS & Anr. v. Rama Ravikumar & Anr.]. .On December 1, Justice GR Swaminathan had 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.He had also held that the same will not infringe the rights of the nearby Dargah or Muslims in any manner.However, noting that the order was not complied with, the single-judge passed another order on December 3 permitting devotees themselves to light the lamp. He also ordered that the petitioners and other devotees be given protection by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) attached to the Madurai Bench of the High Court..This order was challenged by the District Collector and City Police Commissioner by way of a letters patent appeal.However, a Division Bench of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai Bench dismissed the appeal, observing that there was no illegality in ordering CISF protection when the single-judge found that the State machinery had wilfully decided to not implement the directions in the first order. "The learned Single Judge, having found that the State machinery willfully decided not to implement the direction citing pendency of the unnumbered appeal, called upon the assistance of CISF for enforcing the directions. The situation has arisen in which the State Police unable to carry the constitution mandate. There is no illegality in taking the assistance of central force for the said purpose, if the circumstances warrant," the Bench said. The Bench also opined that the appeal was filed with the ulterior motive to preemptively fend off contempt action against State government officials..Therefore, we find this appeal filed with ulterior motive to preempt contempt action is liable to be dismissed.Madras High Court.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 be belonging 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. After examining the matter, the single-judge concluded that the Deepathoon is on temple land and not within the area recognised as belonging to the dargah. .While considering the present appeal, the Division Bench noted that despite clear directions from the Court to permit devotees to light the lamp, the District Collector had issued a prohibitory order barring the entry of the devotees, including the original petitioner, to the hilltop. The Bench took a dim view of the same but decided not to go into the issue for the time. "We failed to understand that when there is specific order by the High Court to permit the petitioner and others, 10 in numbers, to light the Deepam at the Deepa Thoon, how this prohibitory order can be put against them and whether the executive order passed under Section 163 of BNSS will prevail over the judicial order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be decided. We wish this will be decided at the appropriate time," the Bench said.The Bench proceeded to dismiss the appeal and left it open to the single-judge to decide whether contempt action is called for against the government officials. .[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.