A legal battle is brewing over a hill, and it's not your typical property dispute. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has just declined an urgent request from the Tamil Nadu government, leaving many wondering about the fate of a sacred lamp-lighting tradition.
The Tamil Nadu authorities filed a petition challenging the Madras High Court's decision to allow the lighting of a lamp at the Thiruparankundram hills, a site of religious significance for both Hindu and Muslim communities. But here's where it gets controversial—the hill is located near a dargah, a Muslim shrine, and the petition seeks to restrict the Hindu devotees' practice.
Today, the state's counsel mentioned the petition before the CJI for urgent listing. However, another counsel opposed this move, accusing the state of merely putting on a show. They claimed, "The state is only playing a drama..." and suggested that the real motive was to inform the High Court of their Supreme Court mention.
The CJI, Surya Kant, promptly rejected the oral mentioning, stating, "No mentioning, thank you." This decision aligns with a recent circular issued by the Supreme Court, which restricts oral mentioning for listing unless it's an extreme emergency permitted by the CJI.
The Tamil Nadu authorities had previously filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the Madras High Court's order that allowed devotees of the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light lamps at the hilltop stone lamp pillar, known as Deepathoon. This order was passed despite the hill's proximity to the dargah.
The petition was filed after a division bench of the High Court dismissed the State's appeal against an earlier order by a single bench, which permitted the lamp lighting with security protection by the CISF. The single bench's order came during contempt proceedings initiated due to non-compliance with a previous directive.
Following the dismissal of the contempt appeal, the single bench took swift action. It directed the District Administration and the Police to allow the lamp lighting immediately and quashed any prohibitory orders in the area.
The matter was then posted for the next day, and the State swiftly approached the Supreme Court. However, the authorities did not permit the lamp lighting and even detained leaders who tried to climb the hill.
The Special Leave Petition was filed by K.J. Praveenkumar, District Collector, and J. Loganathan, Commissioner of Police, who were facing contempt proceedings before the single bench.
This case, KJ Praveen Kumar v. Rama Ravikumar, is set to be a contentious one. And this is the part most people miss—it's not just about a lamp; it's about the delicate balance between religious traditions and legal boundaries. Will the Supreme Court intervene, or will the CJI's decision stand? The outcome will undoubtedly shape the future of this sacred hill and the religious practices associated with it.
