MADURAI: The state government told the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday that the ancient stone pillar or ‘deepathoon’ located atop the Thiruparankundram hill belongs to Jains and not Hindus. The state also told a bench of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan that the relief sought in the petitioner’s plea is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation but was styled as a private petition in an attempt to do ‘forum shopping’.
The averments were made by senior counsel N Jothi, representing the joint commissioner of HR&CE, while arguing before the judges in a batch of appeals filed against Justice GR Swaminathan’s order dated December 1, which directed the lighting of Karthigai Deepam on the pillar.
It could be noted that in the previous hearing on December 12, Advocate General PS Raman, representing the collector, had argued that the petitioners had not submitted any proof before the single judge to show that the pillar was indeed a ‘deepathoon’.
During the hearing on Monday, Jothi claimed that stone pillars similar in structure to the Thiruparankundram ‘deepathoon’ have been found erected by Jain sages in several hills, including ‘Samanar hills’ in Madurai and Shravanabelagola in Karnataka. The sages, belonging to Digambara sect of Jainism, had used these pillars to light lamps when they congregated on these hills for discussions at night times, the counsel said and submitted several books containing references on the matter.
‘Decision to light deepam elsewhere can’t be taken without ASI nod’
Therefore, the stone pillar atop Thiruparankundram is not meant for lighting Karthigai Deepam, Jothi said. He also cited Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, which talks about the powers of trustees to make regulations for the maintenance of order and decorum, and performance of rites and ceremonies in temples.
Another senior counsel appearing for the Subramaniya Swamy temple, AK Sriram, pointed out that though the single judge had quashed the executive officer’s decision to light the lamp at the usual spot near Uchipillaiyar temple citing that the decision ought to have been taken by the Board of Trustees, the latter was not made a party to the case.
Senior counsel T Mohan representing the jamath members of the dargah criticised the hurried manner in which the single judge had conducted the case proceedings. Though rules dictate that parties are entitled to eight weeks’ time to file counter, the single judge had only given them three days’ time.
“I was also disconnected from the video conference on one occasion during proceedings before Justice Swaminathan,” Mohan alleged. He also pointed out that in a previous round of litigation relating to permitting animal sacrifice on the hill, the HC had taken a stand that the Muslims should go before the civil court and establish that it was a traditional practice. The same yardstick would apply to the petitioners too, he contended.
Another counsel G Prabhu Rajadurai, who argued on behalf of the managing trustee of the dargah, also alleged procedural violations and lack of opportunity to file a detailed counter. Though the single judge claimed that an open invitation was made before he inspected the hill, dargah was not even made a party to the case at that time, he said.
Rajadurai further claimed that the phrase ‘at least 15 metres from the dargah’ in the 1996 judgment has been wrongly interpreted as if deepam can be lit 15 metres from the dargah building, when it should be construed as 15 metres from the hilltop which belongs to the dargah.
He also cited that the boundary of the said hilltop should be demarcated before calculating this distance. To this, the judges asked if the dargah would object if the boundary is demarcated and a lamp is lit 15 metres away from the boundary.
However, Rajadurai said if the same is done in a writ petition, it will still cause serious prejudice to them. Senior counsel T Lajapa thy Roy, representing one of the petitioners R Kanagavel Pandian who wants to light the lamp at usual spot, also referred to the animal sacrifice judgment and said a decision to light Karthigai Deepam elsewhere on the hill cannot be taken without getting prior permission from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
Meanwhile, advocate S Vanchinathan representing one of the impleading petitioners, cited the 1954 Shirur Mutt verdict delivered by a seven-judge bench of the SC on rights and freedom of religious institutions and denominations.
The judges posted the case on Tuesday for further hearing.
