The Madras High Court on Monday, March 2, suggested that the Madurai district administration could permit five selected individuals to offer prayers at the “Deepathoon” (stone pillar) on Thiruparankundram Hill, a disputed site located adjacent to a Muslim shrine.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court observed that such a move could serve as a symbolic gesture to demonstrate compliance with the court’s earlier order directing the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the site.
On December 1, the Madurai Bench had ordered that the ceremonial Karthigai Deepam be lit at the stone pillar located on the higher peak of Thiruparankundram Hill, near the Hazrat Sulthan Sikkandar Badusha Dargah. The petition seeking the lighting was filed by Rama Ravikumar of the Hindu Makkal Katchi. However, the district administration had declined permission, citing potential law and order concerns.
The court was hearing a contempt petition against district authorities, including Madurai City Police Commissioner J Loganathan and District Collector KJ Praveenkumar, for failing to implement the order. The suggestion was made after the Collector filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology to the court.
Justice Swaminathan clarified that allowing five persons to offer prayers for 15 minutes at the site could be considered a symbolic act, but emphasised that it was a suggestion and not a direction. The administration informed the court that it would respond to the proposal, and the contempt petition was adjourned to 4 pm on March 4.
During the hearing, the court also took exception to reported remarks by Tamil Nadu Minister for Minerals and Mines S Regupathi. According to a LiveLaw report, an application before the court alleged that the Minister had stated that the state would not permit the lighting of the Deepam.
A petition was filed seeking to implead the Minister in the contempt proceedings, contending that his remarks suggested an intention to frustrate the court’s order. While closing the sub-application, the judge observed that such public statements should not be made when the matter is sub judice.