Supreme Court to hear TN plea on Thirupparankundram lamp row; no interim relief

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging a Madras High Court order that directed the lighting of a lamp at a stone pillar near a dargah on the Thirupparankundram hill. The court, however, declined to grant any interim relief to the State government.

A Bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar issued notices to the Madurai District Collector, the Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, the Sikkandar Badhusah Dargah, the Archaeological Survey of India, the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, and the original petitioner in the High Court, Rama Ravikumar, among others. The plea was filed by the Commissioner of the HR&CE Department, Chennai.

Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the State, argued that the High Court had created a new tradition by ordering the lighting of the lamp at the pillar. He maintained that it was not within the court's purview to establish such practices. The State also asserted that there were no historical records showing the lamp was ever lit on the stone pillar.

Mr. Gupta warned that a dangerous situation could arise if the practice were allowed to begin. “If it is done once, it would be repeated in the years after,” he told the Bench. The court asked whether there was any prevailing tradition of lighting the lamp on the pillar, to which the State responded in the negative.

The Bench refused to pass any interim order, stating that it would hear the case comprehensively after the respondents file their affidavits within six weeks. The matter has been listed for hearing in eight weeks.

The dispute pertains to the Thirupparankundram hill, where the Subramaniya Swamy Temple and a dargah coexist, symbolising religious harmony. The Madras High Court's Division Bench, in early January this year, confirmed a Single Judge's order directing the temple management to light the Karthigai Deepam at the ‘deepathoon’ (stone pillar) atop the hill, in addition to the usual places of worship.

The previous Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government had failed to convince the court that the lighting of the lamp could lead to public disturbances. The Single Judge had dismissed these apprehensions as an “imaginary ghost”. The court had also observed that such disturbances would occur only if the State itself sponsored them.

In its remarks, the Single Judge Bench had said: “It is ridiculous and hard to believe the fear of the mighty State that by allowing representatives of the Devasthanam [temple management] to light the lamp at the stone pillar near the top of the hill located within its territory of Devasthanam land, on a particular day in a year, will cause disturbance to public peace. Of course, it may happen only if such a disturbance is sponsored by the State itself.”

The High Court had further urged the State not to “stoop” to that level to achieve a political agenda. It reasoned that allowing a few persons to light the lamp and permitting worship was not an unmanageable task.

The current plea has been filed by the government led by Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay. The State has argued that the High Court's order overstepped judicial limits by inventing a new tradition. The Supreme Court's decision to examine the case without interim relief means that, for now, the lower court's order remains operative until a final ruling is made.

The case highlights the delicate balance between religious practices and public order, and the role of courts in adjudicating such matters. All eyes will be on the Supreme Court's comprehensive hearing scheduled eight weeks from now.