Tirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam row: Madurai Bench of Madras HC hears multiple appeals

Madurai: Justices G Jayachandran and K K Ramakrishnan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court began hearing a large batch of cases related to the ongoing Tirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam issue.

Senior Counsel Vikas Singh appeared for the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu and the Madurai Commissioner of Police in appeals filed against Justice G R Swaminathan’s December 9 order. Meanwhile, Advocate General P S Raman commenced arguments on behalf of the State in a writ appeal challenging the December 1 order.

Arguments by Advocate General

The Advocate General highlighted that the Deepam had been lit atop Uchi Pillaiyar Temple on the Tirupparankundram hills this year, following a tradition upheld for over a century. However, a writ petition had been filed by an individual insisting that the Deepam be lit at a different location identified by him.

The AG emphasised that this was not a public interest litigation, but a private interest petition, seeking to light the Deepam at a site now being referred to as Deepathoon near a Dargah.

Appeals against virtual summons

The Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary and ADGP (Law & Order) have filed appeals against Justice Swaminathan’s December 9 order, which had summoned them for virtual hearing on December 17. These appeals were listed for hearing on Friday before Justices Jayachandran and Ramakrishnan.

PIL request rejected

Senior Counsel P V Balasubramaniam sought permission to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a “lunch motion” to constitute a peace committee to resolve the dispute. Justice Jayachandran refused the request, noting that a sufficient number of related cases are already pending before the court.

Key legal question: Existence of deepathoon

The AG pointed out that the dispute raises a fundamental legal question: whether the site referred to as Deepathoon even exists. He argued that the writ petitioner must first prove the existence of Deepathoon and then demonstrate the necessity of lighting the Deepam there as part of customary practice.

The AG also took the Bench through a series of judgements dating back to 1923, including a Privy Council ruling, to underline the historical and legal context of the dispute.