Thirupparankundram lamp lighting case: Concern of public disorder non-existent, advocate tells HC

Madurai (Tamil Nadu), Dec 17 (PTI) Concerns raised by district authorities over public disorder if Karthigai Deepam (lamp) was lit on a stone pillar near a dargah atop the Thirupparankundram hill, was "non-existent" aimed at stopping the Tamil culture, senior advocate S Sriram submitted before the Madras High Court on Wednesday.

When the state was "unwilling" to enforce their rights, then the public could seek its enforcement, Sriram said, advancing his arguments on behalf of the devotees opposing appeals against the single judge order permitting the lighting of the lamp on Deepathoon on Karthigai Deepam festival.

The division bench comprising Justice G Jayachandran and Justice K K Ramakrishnan, which heard the arguments in a batch of appeals challenging the December 1 order of Justice G R Swaminathan, for the fourth day today, sought to know if the devotees were willing for a negotiation. But the advocate declined.

The state, dargah, Waqf board, and Madurai district and temple officials who are the appellants in the case had on December 16 concluded their arguments which had continued for three consecutive days.

Sriram contended that the nature of right to worship of the devotees has become a contention and interplay of Waqf Board and ASI act.

"The plea of public order comes from district administration which has not voiced its grievances before the single judge (Justice Swaminathan). Plea of public order is not a bogey or an alibi or a gate pass to avoid scrutiny," Sriram argued.

When he remarked that the officials were saying the right to religion ought to be subordinated by public order, Justice Jayachandran said, "how are they interfering by saying don’t light the lamp? The argument of public order is also exaggerated, your argument also." Sriram insisted that the lighting of the lamp was a Hindu religious practice, but the officials sought to contest this by saying the right to worship at a particular location is not right under Article 25.

"In my case, the mind of the authorities is closed and tilted to the other side. I don't want to name that community," Sriram said and argued that "lighting lamps and worshiping is Tamil culture. This is sought to be stopped only on the grounds of concerns of non-existent public disorder." The arguments by the appellants that the stone pillar could belong to Jains, dargah or could be a survey stone were not bonafide arguments, he claimed.

Referring to the Arulmighu Subrahmanya Swamy temple authorities earlier arguing that "even if Lord Murugan has two wives, only one lamp can be lit on the hillock," the advocate said "this showed the scorn for Hindu devotees." PTI JSP JSP SA