Madras: A fresh legal storm has erupted in the Thiruparankundram hill Deepam Dispute in Tamil Nadu, as a senior advocate representing the Sikkandar Badushah Dargah alleged a violation of natural justice in proceedings before the Madras High Court.
The heated exchanges at the Division Bench highlighted claims that Justice G.R. Swaminathan, who had earlier granted permission for the Karthigai Deepam lamp to be lit on a stone pillar near the Muslim shrine, shut out the dargah’s counsel during the original hearing. The developments have intensified scrutiny over judicial procedure, rights of affected parties, and the broader socio-religious implications of the case.
Background of the Thiruparankundram hill Deepam Dispute
The dispute centers on the annual lighting of the Karthigai Deepam, a traditional lamp-lighting ritual typically observed in Tamil Nadu during the Tamil month of Karthigai.
In early December, a single-judge bench of the Madras High Court, led by Justice G.R. Swaminathan, ordered that the lamp be allowed to be lit atop a stone pillar (referred to locally as Deepathoon) on Thiruparankundram Hill, near the Sikkandar Badushah Dargah and the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple.
The order by Justice Swaminathan sparked controversy because the pillar’s location and religious significance have been historically contested. While temple authorities and Hindu devotees supported the inclusion of this site in the ritual, authorities representing the dargah — a prominent Muslim shrine — and state officials raised objections.
The matter drew political and legal attention, leading to appeals before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, where renewed arguments over procedural fairness have surfaced.
Thiruparankundram hill Deepam Dispute: Allegation of Natural Justice Violation
Counsel’s Claim of Being Shut Out
Senior Advocate T. Mohan, representing the Sikkandar Badushah Dargah, made an emphatic plea to the Division Bench, asserting that Justice Swaminathan had violated fundamental principles of natural justice by effectively precluding the dargah’s voice from the original hearing.
Mohan claimed that:
- Despite seeking adequate time and opportunity to present preliminary objections, he was denied a fair hearing in the single-judge proceedings.
- On attempting to make submissions in November, his virtual court access was disconnected, a move he said was effectively a shut-out.
- The judge allegedly remarked that Mohan had “irritated him on the last occasion” and that his blood sugar might rise, implying a personal aversion to hearing his arguments before other parties were called.
- Mohan forcefully argued that none of these interactions were reflected in the single-judge’s written orders, leaving the procedural irregularities undocumented and unexamined. He emphasized that such conduct contradicts established norms of fair adjudication.
Fast-Tracking and Procedural Concerns
Counsel also raised objections to what he described as summary handling of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that led to the landmark directive permitting the lamp-lighting. Among his claims:
The case was “fast-tracked” in violation of standard writ petition timelines that typically allow at least eight weeks for respondents to file counter-affidavits. In contrast, the dargah was given only three days.
The dargah was not a party to the proceedings at the material stage when key decisions about hearings and orders were made, undermining its right to participate meaningfully.
Mohan highlighted that procedural safeguards exist precisely to ensure that affected parties are properly heard before final orders are issued, and contention that these safeguards were circumvented raised questions of fairness and legality.
Read also: Temple vs Dargah: Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Thiruparankundram Hill Deepam Row
