The Tamil Nadu authorities instructed the Madras Excessive Courtroom (Madurai bench) on Friday (December 12) that devotees who moved the only choose searching for lighting of the lamp at Thiruparakundram Hills couldn’t have claimed the identical as a authorized proper, and Article 226 powers can’t be used to vary a customized in existence for a very long time.
The division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan had been listening to a batch of pleas difficult a single choose’s order directing the temple authorities to mild the lamp on the stone pillar.
The State authorities additionally filed an attraction difficult the only choose’s order in contempt plea on December 4th, whereby the choose quashed the prohibitory order beneath Part 144 CrPC. One other set of Appeals additionally got here up earlier than the court docket difficult the only choose’s order of December 9 within the contempt plea directing the looks of Chief Secretary, ADGP, DCP and impleading the Union House Secretary.
Devotee doesn’t have authorized proper
Through the listening to Advocate Basic (AG) PS Raman showing for the state authorities submitted that the appeals challenged a standard order in 5 writ petitions filed by devotees of the Murugan temple in Thiruparankundram which is a really historical temple.
“The problem was concerning rights of devotees for lighting lamp at temple for Karthigai deepam. The temple itself is located on the foothill of a small 500 foot hill. There is a dargah additionally in identical hill. Historically deepam has been lit on the Uchi Pillaiyar temple. This yr additionally it was achieved. Nevertheless illustration was made by one Rama Ravikumar to temple authorities searching for permission both for temple authorities themselves or to allow him to mild deepam in a distinct place picked by him on what’s being now referred to as deepathoon near a dargah,” the AG stated.
He submitted that the petition was not a PIL however a non-public curiosity litigation whereby court docket is worried with the proper of petitioner and statutory and constitutional obligation of respondent authorities.
He stated, “Every other problem needn’t be dragged into the 4 corners of this room. It is for one more battlefield”.
The AG additional stated that after the petitioner’s illustration was rejected one other petition was filed asking for a path that both temple authorities or the devotee himself might mild the lamp.
“What must be seen is whether or not there was a proper to demand motion and whether or not the authorities had been beneath obligation. The elemental query is existence of deepathoon,” the AG stated.
He stated that because the first spherical of litigation in 1920, there was no point out of the deepathoon and the petitioner devotees have to determine that lighting lamp at deepathoon was a part of customary apply.
Pointing to the historical past of litigation the court docket stated that in 1920 trial court docket had stated that sure a part of hills belonged to devasthanam and different half belonged to dargah and in attraction this order was reversed. He stated that in a PIL filed in 1994 searching for an analogous reduction the place court docket stated that historically it is being lit at a spot, did not see any cause to vary that place. Once more in one other plea in 2014 the court docket stated that there was no necessity to maneuver the lighting of lamp to some other place; this order was upheld by division bench.
He stated that within the current petition the only choose requested temple authorities to mild lamp at what “he described as a deepathoon, which in accordance with him was the proper place the place it ought to be lit”.
“In fact he did not say it shouldn’t be lit on the essential place however he stated along with that it ought to be lit on the different place additionally. This order is the subject material of problem earlier than this court docket,” he added.
AG stated that there have been 4 courts which had utilized their minds to the problem and all reiterated the identical place that deepam was being historically lit there and never wherever else. He stated that the settled place was that any devotee doesn’t have any authorized proper to demand that lamp be lit along with the place the place it was being lit.
A 226 cannot be used to vary a customized
Pointing to the December 1 order the AG stated that whereas the construction was undoubtedly a stone pillar however questioned if it’s a stone lamp pillar.
He stated:
“If some form of historic acceptable proof was positioned earlier than this court docket via supporting doc that in some unspecified time in the future earlier than 1920 it was lit there..and for some cause it has been modified. There isn’t any proof out there earlier than the choose. Assuming with out admitting that there was such proof, for previous 102 years events determined to mild lamp at a spot, can court docket exercising energy beneath Artwork 226 say no, along with that you’ve got to mild it at different place additionally? If a customized was damaged, constitutional proper to worship was affected, court docket can order beneath 226? However 226 is just not supposed to vary a customized by creating a brand new customized“.
AG stated that nobody had challenged the temple’s property proper. “If it was a case involving temple correct dispute, all these would’ve been related. However this problem was purely involving creating a brand new customized for lighting lamp,” he stated.
He additional stated, “Single choose throws out earlier judgment saying that in all these circumstances, the petitioners needed to cease current customized however right here they did not need to cease it.There was not a scarp of paper out there earlier than the only choose to conclude that it was a deepathoon. What if after detailed examine, it seems to be one thing else? It may very well be a deepathoon additionally, I am not the best regulation officer of state to say what it’s. All I can say is that there was no verifiable proof earlier than the court docket”.
AG stated that single choose concluded that temple administration had authorized obligation and the obligation was not discharged.
“In absence of any proof to indicate that there is really one thing referred to as deepathoon, can choose say that temple didn’t carry out its obligation.The one out there proof is the opinion of clergymen who stated that as per Agamas, mild ought to be lit at Uchi Pillaiyar temple. That is the one skilled opinion out there. Single choose stated if traditions had been deserted, temple administration has to revive them. What’s the custom? What is the proof of the custom? This discovering is with none factual foundation,” he stated.
He stated that because the court docket’s energy are extraordinary, “biggest restrain” is subsequently referred to as for. AG stated if the petitioners needed to determine proper over Deepathoon, they may’ve taken civil treatment, nevertheless court docket can not sit beneath Artwork 226 and go declaratory order.
At this stage, Justice Jayachandran orally stated, “This matter is perpetually happening from 1920. If we’re in a position to have a everlasting decision or answer. Since 1920 the communities have coexisted. So sooner or later a yr at a selected level within the hill, how far an individual’s proper to say, whether or not it is unacceptable or unreasonable to some extent with out harming the concord of the place is for the neighborhood to return collectively and resolve completely”.
The AG nevertheless stated that sadly the problem has been escalated and made into a much bigger factor.
Obscure illustration
In the meantime Senior Advocate G Masilamani showing for Govt Officer of Arulmigu Subramaniam Swamy Temple stated that petitioner might have an curiosity within the temple and may come to court docket to guard the proper out there to him, nevertheless no such proper may be assumed by the petitioner right here.
“If we allow it to occur, we’ll be opening a pandora’s field. Innumerable variety of litigations saying you do that, you do not do that, quite a lot of circumstances would possibly come up. Such an order by the court docket will probably be binding everywhere in the state. It can create quite a lot of authorized issues. The administration of temple will develop into a really troublesome activity,” he stated.
Masilamani argued that petitioner had despatched the illustration to the Govt Officer (EO) of the temple and never the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Non secular and Charitable Endowments Division (HR&CE) and therefore the EO had replied.
He stated that the petition in his illustration pointed to established customized of the temple, and sought permission for lighting lamp on the Thiruparakundram hills.
“The illustration may be very obscure. He hasn’t indicated what he intends to do. He says permission for lighting…does not add a distinct place close to the pillar. Uchi Pillaiyar temple can be on the hills. The reply given to his illustration is completely legitimate. The order is extra clear than the illustration. Illustration is a camouflage to safe an order of mandamus. Within the writ he has sought prayer searching for path to EO to mild Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon in accordance with court docket instructions in WP 18884 of 1994. There isn’t any such path,” the counsel stated.
Masilamani stated that what the petitioner had sought within the writ was a deviation from what he had sought within the illustration and was not lined by the latter. H stated that the petitioner’s conduct lacks bonafide.
Non apply of Karthigai deepam on Pillar is the customized
He stated that customized must be established on a constructive act, including {that a} customized is one which is practiced for a very long time.
“From 1862 to 2025 there isn’t any proof to indicate that deepathoon was the place the Karthigai deepam was lit. Lengthy apply of non apply of karthigai deepam on pillar turns into the customized. He desires apply of a non-practicing customized,” he stated.
Stating that there was violation of rules of pure justice attributable to lack of pleadings the counsel stated, “Within the phrases of the choose himself, what should have been said or determined has not been said”.
Masilamani stated that petitioner desires to take deepam to the doorsteps of the individuals. “He says the sunshine ought to be seen to all. However they need to mild lamp at deepathoon. Deepathoon is just not on the hilltop. Dargah is on the hilltop,” he added.
Cannot grant lighting of deepathoon without any consideration
Masilamani says that the only choose had wrongly recorded that deepathoon is situated on the prime of decrease peak; he stated that the dargah is located at one peak and Uchi Pillaiyar temple on the opposite peak and the deepathoon is situated 15 meters away from the dargah. He additional stated that there was no proof to indicate that the stone pillar is deepathoon.
He stated that if the only choose had a distinct opinion, he ought to’ve positioned the matter earlier than Chief Justice to be positioned earlier than a bigger bench for a call, however couldn’t have assumed jurisdiction and reconsiderd a problem which has been conclusively settled.
Masilamani stated, “Finally the discovering of choose relies on error of reality. He failed to notice that conventional website of lighting temple is at Uchi Pillaiyar temple located on decrease hill. He travelled past pleading and didn’t afford alternative to respondent to counter new arguments. Single choose was not proper in extending the overall apply of Hindus to mild lamp throughout Karthigai as a justification order lighting of deepathoon as a matter of proper”.
He stated that the only choose did not be aware of lengthy established customary apply affirmed by a number of binding judicial selections, which can’t be displaced by judicial path and doing so quantities to arbitrary train of energy.
Masilamani stated that the matter didn’t contain any urgency as the current apply was being adopted for nearly 175 years. He stated that the petitioner ought to have first approached the HR&CE division and thereafter ought to have moved court docket in case of grievance.
In the meantime senior advocate R Shunmugasundaram showing for the state division stated that it was for the Devasthanam to take a call and never anyone else.
At this stage Justice Jayachandran orally stated, “Some ignition should come from worshippers. Right here, a worshipper is coming. Right here it is apparent. There isn’t any document to indicate that the illustration was positioned earlier than the Commissioner (HR&CE). However on a complete studying of Justice Kanagaraj’s order, if a worshipper desires to shift to a different place, it isn’t fully closed. If they offer you a illustration correctly, will you take into account it?”
Shunmugasundaram stated, “Let the authorities resolve. I am unable to give a phrase”.
He stated that if one worshipper asks and whether it is allowed then tomorrow 1000’s of worshippers may come searching for the proper.
Justice Jayachandran requested, “You say they didn’t extinguish their statutory treatment and got here on to court docket. Courtroom handed an order and also you’re difficult. Are you able to afford them a chance?” To this Shunmugasundaram stated, “I needn’t concede. It’s the place of regulation“.
The court docket listed the matter on December 15.
Leave a Reply