MADURAI: The suggestion made by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board before the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court to consider resolving the issue of lighting the Karthigai Deepam on the Thiruparankundram hilltop through a court-monitored mediation was strongly objected by the counsels representing the Hindu devotees, who called it an attempt to further complicate the issue.
Even the question posed by a division bench of justices G Jayachandran and K K Ramakrishnan whether the matter could be remitted back to the HR&CE department to be decided through an inquiry under Section 63 of the HR&CE Act, 1959, was met with resistance. Our rights would not be safe at the hands of authorities who expressed scorn towards our faith, senior counsel S Sriram said.
He also claimed that the Waqf Board cannot make such an offer as it does not have control over the dargah, in view of Section 3D of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which states that any declaration or notification issued in respect of waqf properties shall be void, if the property was a protected monument or protected area under Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (ASI Act).
However, this was refuted by the TN Waqf Board counsel Abdul Mubeen, who cited Section 5 (6) of the ASI Act, which said the provisions of the Act will not prevent any person from performing religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court too, while hearing the challenge made to Waqf (Amendment) Act, had refused to stay Section 3D since there is already a protection under the ASI Act, he pointed out. But the judges replied that the offer (mediation) itself has been rejected.
Senior counsel P Valliappan, representing petitioner Rama Ravikumar, alleged that the authorities have teamed up against the devotees. He requested the court to permit him to play a video footage to explain the topography of the hill, but the judges told him to share a copy with the court and the parties concerned, adding that they (the judges) may also visit the hill if needed.
Countering the arguments made by the petitioners’ counsels that the issue was not res judicata (already decided by a competent court), advocate S Vanchinathan referred to an order passed by Justice M Venugopal on December 4, 2014, which rejects a plea made by a Hindu outfit to light Karthigai deepam on the Kuthirai Sunai Thittu. He cited that the order discusses the rejection of past requests to light the lamp ‘at a stone pillar very close to the dargah on top of the hill’. The case was posted to Thursday for Advocate General P S Raman to reply to the petitioners’ arguments.