MADURAI: Claiming that the stone pillar atop Thiruparankundram hill, which is stated to be a ‘deepathoon’, actually falls under dargah property as per the 1923 judgment, the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board on Tuesday told the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court that the issue could be resolved through a court-monitored mediation.
However, when the division bench of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan asked senior counsel S Guru Krishnakumar, who appeared for one of the petitioners M Arasupandi, whether the petitioner would be agreeable to a mediation between the parties, the advocate replied that the petitioner was not ready as it may create further delay.
The bench, which was hearing a batch of appeals filed against the judgment passed by Justice GR Swaminathan on December 1, also refused to pass any direction to defer the contempt petitions to be heard by Justice Swaminathan on Wednesday. The single judge, who had directed the lighting of Karthigai Deepam on a ‘deepathoon’ near the Sikandar Badusha Dargah atop the hill, had directed the TN chief secretary and additional DGP (L&O) to appear through video conference on Wednesday and explain their stand on the repeated non-compliance of his orders.
On Tuesday, advocate R Abdul Mubeen, who argued on behalf of Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, said as per the 1923 order, the mosque and its adjuncts on the summit of the hill belonged to the Mohammedans, and the adjuncts, according to Mubeen, included the pillar (deepathoon) in question. Mubeen further claimed that the pillar could be accessed only by passing through the dargah. Question of title, right to passage, etc should be decided through a civil suit, not in a writ petition, he said.
By permitting the use of some of the flight of steps to reach the deepathoon, the single judge’s order defeats the 1923 and Privy Council judgments, which held that the steps belong to the dargah, he added. But he clarified, “Climbing the steps itself is not an issue. But if it is for the purpose of lighting lamp, then our rights may be affected.”
Senior Counsel Vikas Singh, who represented the Madurai collector and commissioner of police, criticised that Justice Swaminathan’s order has created communal disharmony and an impression across the country that the ‘TN state is against Hindus’. The 1996 judgment left it to the discretion of the authorities to decide if the deepam could be lit elsewhere on the hill. So the single judge ought to have told the authorities to explore the possibilities but he went beyond the order and violated his oath, Singh said.
He also contended that even if it is proved in future that the pillar is indeed a ‘deepathoon’, the state has to make a new infrastructure to access it and not permit usage of the flight of steps belonging to the dargah.
However, senior counsels representing the petitioners slammed this saying when the Muslim worshippers are permitted to use the temple’s portion of the hill to reach the flight of steps from the foothills, the state cannot nitpick when the Hindu devotees want to use a few of the steps to reach the deepathoon. “State is not taking an even-handed approach to the entire issue,” he said.
Krishnakumar also argued that the executive officer should not have decided the issue as the 1996 judgment only gave the discretion to the devasthanam. This discretion is also accompanied by a duty to consider the worshippers’ wishes, he pointed out.
However, to a question put by the court whether the petitioner was ready for mediation, he said the petitioner apprehended delay. When the judges pointed out that there are over 300 days for the next Karthigai Deepam festival, Krishnakumar said he would inform the court if the petitioner agrees.
Another senior counsel S Sriram representing petitioner S Paramasivam said the issue was not ‘res judicata’ (already decided by a competent court) as even according to the appellants, there has been no mention of the ‘deepathoon’ in any of the earlier court cases. The case was adjourned to Wednesday.