State wants surrender of Hindu rights: Temple devotees to Madras HC in hill lamp lighting case

The Commissioner of Tamil Nadu's Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR&CE Department) has shown sheer scorn for Hinduism, a Hindu devotee told the Madras High Court during today's hearing of the Thiruparankundram Karthigai Deepam lighting case..Appearing before a Bench of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan, Senior Advocate S Sriram noted that the HR&CE Commissioner's counsel earlier commented that even if Lord Murugan has two wives, two lamps cannot be lit at Thiruparankundram..Taking strong exception to this remark, Sriram said,"My trust in my Gods, my faith is a subject matter of scorn by the Commissioner! It is sheer contempt of my faith. Please don't send me to a Commissioner who has undisguised his scorn and contempt to my faith!"Sriram, therefore, urged the Court not to accept an argument made by the State that the devotees should approach the HRCE authority to settle the dispute, instead of litigating the matter."I do not think my rights are safe in the rights of the authorities ... What further scorn and contempt I will have to face there?" Sriram said..He added that Hindu devotees had little faith in having the case settled by mediation. He argued that every time a peace meeting has been explored, the temple ended up having to retreat or let go of its rights. "It is like saying 'we will wound, let you in pain (and then offer mediation)' - it is a case of toxic mental cruelty, as is referred to in the matrimonial scene. Every other resolution meeting ended with Hindus retreating, giving up little more of their rights," he said. .He contended that the State is clearly tilted towards one side, and that it wants coexistence at the cost of Hindus surrendering their rights."The submission of the State is 'keep retreating, don't assert your right, live for another day.' This is the State that should be guardian, secular, fiercely neutral and protecting rights. ... State wants us to coexist, but I can coexist only if I surrender," Sriram contended. He also alleged that there have been real attempts to encroach upon the temple's rights at the hillock."It's not mere apprehensions of encroachment; this is the stance of the other side - calling it as Sikkandar Hill, asking for animal sacrifice, defacing the walls. Religion should not have colour, but the hills have been painted green during a festival by the other side," he said. .The case concerns the lighting of a lamp on a stone pillar atop the sacred Thiruparankundram which houses both the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy temple and the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah. Justice GR Swaminathan had recently allowed the temple's devotees to light a Karthigai Deepam (lamp to mark the Hindu festival of lights) at the stone pillar, which is near the Dargah.Justice Swaminathan concluded that there would be no violation of Muslim rights in doing so, as the pillar was a Deepathoon (a structure designed to hold lamps) and it lay in an area not owned by the Muslim side. The judge found that this area, though near the dargah, was actually owned by the temple under a civil court judgment from the 1920s. .This decision was challenged by the Tamil Nadu government, the dargah, the State's waqf board, and Madurai authorities through pleas filed before a Division Bench of the Court.The State and the HR&CE argued that there were Jain inscriptions to indicate that the pillar was used by Jains and did not belong to Hindus.Another argument made was that it was a survey stone. The waqf board and dargah later claimed that the pillar rested on an area of the hillock that belonged to the dargah.The Madurai authorities, represented by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, even contended that calling the pillar a Hindu 'deepathoon', reflected a figment of Justice Swaminathan's imagination..The Hindu devotees vehemently opposed these arguments today. Sriram argued that these were non-existent claims that were made just to complicate the matter. He also tackled the contention that Justice Swaminathan had acted on his "whims and fancies.""It is a reasoned order .. If there is whim and fancy, it is at foot of appellants actuated by the compulsions of being blinded to one side and being welcoming to the other. That has percolated to the temple and the trust board, who refuse to speak, and executive officer who toes the line of the State," he said.He further countered arguments that the Places of Worship Act would bar Hindus from claiming the stone pillar as a deepathoon."If anyone is changing religious nature of the hill, it is the State. It was always a deepathoon meant for (Hindu devotees)," Sriram said..Senior Advocate Valliapan represented another Hindu devotee and argued that it was an essential Hindu religious practice to light the Karthigai lamp at the peaks of hills."It is an essential religious practice amongst Hindus to light the deepam on the day of Karthigai on top of the hill for many reasons. We see the manifestation, the jyothi swaroopam of God. Everybody can see .... Lighting agni (fire) atop hill has got religious significance. We consider it as God itself, that is why it is lit on top of the hill," he said.He also pointed out that the State has not show any record to prove that the pillar is not a deepathoon."Yesterday there was an argument (by Muslim side) that the 'entire hilltop belongs to us.' No, the entire hill belongs to the Devasthanam barring some portions," he added..Another counsel questioned why the State was insisting that the dispute be taken out of court when no such hindrance was made when Muslims brought other cases concerning the hillock."Every time a Hindu or member of public is coming to (court) to see worship is done in manner it is done at appropriate stage and place, what is problem of devasthanam and HRCE to say we should go to HRCE?" she asked.Senior Advocate KPS Palanivel, also representing a Hindu devotee, added,“Lighting of lamp is essential religious practice, which has to be lit on top of the hill. We can't say, you are already lighting one, why second? Deepam has its own relevance to religion.".The hearing will continue tomorrow when Advocate General PS Raman is expected to make rejoinder arguments on behalf of the State..[Live Coverage].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.