MADURAI: Criticising the recent claims that the tree atop the Thirupparankundram hill near the Sikandar Badusha Dargah belonged to the Subramaniya Swamy temple devasthanam and the dargah should not have tied its Santhanakoodu festival flag on it, advocate S Vanchinathan stated that the tree belongs to the dargah, which has been hoisting flag on it for more than 200 years.
Addressing reporters along with the secretary of Sikandar Badusha Dargah M Arif Khan on Tuesday, Vanchinathan referred to a 'Sthala Varalaaru' (temple's history) book published by the devasthanam in 2023 and said, "According to the book, the 'Thala Virutcham' (Kallathi tree) of the temple is situated near Vasantha Mandapam entrance on the pathway to Lakshmi Theertham on the base of the hill. The recent claims that the tree on the hilltop near the dargah is the Thala Virutcham is a false propaganda by Sangh Parivar groups." He slammed BJP leader H Raja for spreading misinformation and "trespassing" into dargah's property in an attempt to remove the flag.
Vanchinathan further criticised Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court for discussing the above issue while hearing the contempt petition filed over the Karthigai deepam verdict on January 9. "Justice Swaminathan's order is not alive in view of the subsequent division bench's order which is the higher forum and when the order itself is non implementable, how can a contempt petition over willful disobedience of the order be heard," the advocate questioned. He also criticised why the judge brought up the Kallathi tree controversy during the deepam case.
"The flag has been hoisted in the same spot for the past 200 years. This year too, the decision was taken during a peace committee meeting which was also attended by the temple officials, who had affixed their signature accepting the decision. But they have lodged a complaint against us now that it is their property and permission was not obtained," M Arif Khan said.
Vanchinathan alleged that the executive officer lodged the complaint after being pressurised by Justice Swaminathan during the contempt hearing. "When the additional advocate general and the temple's counsel were present, what was the need to directly question the officer, especially on a matter which was in no way connected to the case on hand," Vanchinathan questioned, adding that the government counsels also remained silent instead of informing the judge that the matter relating to the flag was pending before another judge (Justice S Srimathy).