No empirical data available to prove stone pillar on Thirupparankundram hill is a deepathoon, T.N. tells HC

The Tamil Nadu government on Thursday informed the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court that, as of date, there was no empirical data available to prove that the stone pillar on Thirupparankundram hill was a deepathoon.

A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan was hearing the appeals preferred against the order of Justice G.R. Swaminathan, who had directed the Subramaniya Swamy temple management to light the Karthigai Deepam at the deepathoon besides the usual places, as well as other related appeals.

Advocate-General P.S. Raman, representing the State, told the court that the State had not formed an opinion on the stone pillar, and did not wish to take a stand on the matter.

He said no deepam had ever been lit there till now. No data was available as to when the stone pillar was put up, and for what purpose. It could only be ascertained when there is a full-fledged inquiry, he said.

Original Suit

Before the deepathoon issue, the Survey and Revenue Departments had been verifying the significance and the origin of the stone pillars in Madurai and Tirunelveli. In the Original Suit of 1920, the trial judge had inspected the area, and observed that the only religious structure on top of the hill was the dargah and its adjuncts, he said.

Referring to Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which sets out the powers of the HR and CE authorities to decide such matters, he said it was not only the correct remedy, but also the only remedy, adding that a civil suit was not the remedy.

‘Wrong questions’

Wrong questions were asked to the wrong persons. The Board of Trustees was the right person. Much time was wasted on pure emotions. The parties should be relegated to the correct authorities, the A-G said.

However, senior advocate S. Sriram, representing one of the petitioners, said they wanted the retrieval of the custom. Referring to Section 63(e) of the Act, he said they did not wish to go there as the authorities had taken a stand and given their opinion on the matter.

Senior Advocate P. Valliappan, representing another petitioner, said if they had gone by Section 63(e) of the Act, it would have been rejected. The dargah also lights deepam as per tradition, he added.

The senior counsel for the petitioners said it was not a new concept to light the deepam at the hilltop. There was a book about the temple that mentioned that Karthigai Deepam was also being lit at the deepathoon on the hill.

After hearing all the parties concerned, the judges reserved orders.