Deepam row: TN Govt debunks claims of ‘deepathoon’; HC told it is ‘Survey Pillar’

Debunking the claims of the stone pillar, abutting the dargah, atop the Thiruparankundram hillock, as a ‘deepathoon’ of the famed Murugan temple below, the Tamil Nadu Government on Friday told a Division Bench of Madras High Court that it was merely a survey pillar and there was no record of deepam being lit there.

Advancing arguments before the Madurai Bench, comprising Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan, Advocate General PS Raman, and senior counsel G Masilamani assailed the December 1 order of Justice GR Subramanian, directing lighting of ‘Karthigai Deepam’ at the stone pillar and made it clear that it was not a ‘deepathoon’, pillar to light deepam, but a survey stone.

Advertisement

As usual, this year too, Deepam was lit at the Uchipillaiyar (Vinayaka) temple, a practice more than a century old, and they submitted and tore down the single judge’s order as one beyond the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution. “There is not even a scrap of paper before the single judge to prove that the stone pillar is a Deepathoon. If every judge begins to suggest a new place for lighting deepam, there will be hundreds of options,” the AG, appearing for the state, said, adding that the single judge’s order was contrary to the earlier verdict of a Division bench.

When Justice Jayachandran asked what was wrong with changing the place of lighting the deepam on the hill if there could be better visibility for the people on the ground, the AG’s response was that it cannot be the parameter to change a customary practice in vogue for decades together. “When the Thiruparankundram temple priests had clearly said that the deepam should be lit only at Uchi Pillayar temple and the temple management also had taken the same view, the writ court cannot take a contrary view,” he argued, pointing out that there is no factual basis or verifiable evidence for the single judge’s view that the tradition of lighting at the stone pillar had been abandoned.

“The petitioner can always file a civil suit and establish whether the so-called deepathoon is really a deepathoon and whether deepam was ever lit on it or not. However, those issues cannot be decided under Article 226 (Writ jurisdiction). The Writ petitioner must first establish the existence of a deepathoon and the need to light deepam on it as part of a customary practice,” Raman submitted, dismissing the petition as a private interest petition and not a PIL. “Right to worship should yield to public order,” he added. Then, taking the Bench through a series of past judgments since 1920, including one by the Privy Council in 1923, the AG said nowhere the deepathoon had found a mention.

Representing the Temple Executive Officer (EO), senior counsel Masilamani, explaining the difference between lighting a lamp, a minor one, and a deepam, a massive one, submitted that a deepam could not be lit at the survey pillar, which is being claimed as a deepathoon. Further, he said, while the petitioner’s plea mentioned a deepa mantap, there is none at the stone pillar except the one at Uchi Pillayar temple.

“The single judge had granted relief to the petitioner beyond the pleading made by the latter. Without pleadings, no litigation can travel in the right course, and such a practice cannot be allowed,” the counsel said, adding, “the temple management need not prove that the stone pillar in question is not a depathoon, but it is for the petitioner to prove that it is indeed a deepathoon. I need not prove the negative, they have to prove the positive.”

The matter has been adjourned for Monday.