TN defends defying HC order in SC
NEW DELHI: While continuing its defiance of orders from Madras HC allowing lighting of the ‘Karthigai Deepam’ atop Thiruparankundram hills, Tamil Nadu’s DMK govt on Friday requested Supreme Court for an early hearing on its appeal but got no such assurance from CJI Surya Kant.When a counsel mentioned TN’s appeal before a bench of CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, referring it to as an issue of “lighting of a lamp on a hilltop” and urging for an urgent hearing, the CJI said he would consider its listing as soon as possible. The state govt defended its action of not complying with the HC orders allowing the traditional lighting of ‘deepam’ at the stone lamp pillar on the Thirupparankundram hillock near Madurai on the ground that legally it had exclusive rights over rituals and customs of Uchi Pillayar temple.HC had allowed the ‘deepam’, saying it would not encroach the rights of the adjacent dargah. The order passed by a single-judge bench was upheld by a division bench.Appearing for a caveator, advocate P V Yogeswaran said that on the one hand, TN is repeatedly defying the HC’s orders, and on the other, it is “creating a drama” by filing an appeal in SC to dissuade HC from proceeding with the contempt proceedings initiated against authorities for blatant, brazen and deliberate defiance of HC’s orders. In its appeal in SC, the MK Stalin-led DMK govt said HC cannot use its “contempt jurisdiction” to question temple rituals and customs, which are within the exclusive domain of authorities under TN Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959.The single-judge bench on Wednesday initiated contempt proceedings against officials after the ‘deepam’ was lit at the temple, not at the ‘deepathoon’ atop the hill, as directed by it on Dec 1. TN’s appeal against this order was dismissed by the division bench.The DMK govt in its appeal in SC said the temple’s management, including the area under ‘deepathoon’ was under its exclusive control, and that it had passed prohibitory orders to ensure safety of citizens and take care of possible law and order situations. “The impugned judgment (of HC) raises important questions regarding the limits of contempt jurisdiction, the autonomy of temple management under statutory schemes, the effect of prior civil decrees and writ precedents, and the interface between judicial orders and executive law and order measures,” it said.The appeal detailed the tussle between HC and authorities. HC’s single-judge bench at 6.05pm on Dec 3 ordered authorities to allow the petitioner to go to the hilltop to light the lamp, and around the same time, the district collector issued prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS (Section 144 of CrPC) prohibiting persons from climbing the hillock to prevent a law and order situation.The division bench, while dismissing the state’s appeal, had said the executive orders under Section 162 of the BNSS cannot override judicial directions, and noted apparent manipulation/timing of prohibitory orders. It said the appeal was a “well-designed act” to pre-empt contempt. It said the single-judge would decide whether the non-compliance of its orders was wilful.
