The Tamil Nadu government announced on Tuesday its decision to file an appeal against a recent order from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The court had allowed the lighting of a lamp on a stone pillar located in Thiruparankundram, a move the state strongly opposes.
Government's Firm Stance Against "New Practice"
State Law Minister S Regupathy, addressing the media in Chennai shortly after the court's decision was made public, articulated the government's position. He asserted that granting permission for lighting the Karthigai Deepam on the pillar, based solely on an individual's request, was incorrect. He argued that such a judicial order effectively introduces a new religious practice where none historically existed.
Regupathy emphasized that the government views this move as contrary to the sentiments of the Tamil people. He set a clear evidentiary bar, stating that if proponents claim the lamp-lighting practice existed historically, they must provide concrete proof to the court. "In this case, no such evidence exists," the minister declared categorically.
Historical Context and Public Order Concerns
Elaborating on the state's historical understanding, Regupathy said the stone structure in question was erected during the British period on the hilltop. He challenged the historical continuity of the practice, stating, "There is no evidence of lamps being lit there during the Nayakar period, the British period, or during the tenures of (late chief ministers) Rajaji or Kamaraj."
He was also firm in his description of the act, clarifying, "Whatever the interpretations that are being made now, it is not a deepathoon (a traditional row of lamps)."
The minister defended the administration's preemptive actions, referring to the curfew imposed in Thiruparankundram on December 3. He stated the government acted to prevent a situation where large crowds could have assembled at the hilltop, potentially disrupting public order. The district collector and the superintendent of police were credited with imposing prohibitory orders at the appropriate time to restrict access. Regupathy affirmed the state's authority to take such measures to maintain law and order.
Setting a Precedent and the Path Forward
Concluding his remarks, the Law Minister expressed a significant concern about the long-term implications of the High Court's order. He warned that allowing the lamp to be lit on the stone pillar near the dargah (a Muslim shrine) would set a legal and cultural precedent. This, he feared, would inevitably turn a one-time permission into a continuing annual practice, altering the site's status quo.
The state's planned appeal signals its intent to legally contest what it sees as an unwarranted judicial intervention in matters of tradition and public safety. The case now awaits the next hearing in a higher judicial forum.
