The Thiruparankundram temple administration on Friday, December 12, submitted to the Madras High Court that there was no evidence that the Karthigai deepam was lit at the deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) on the hill, while the state maintained that a new custom cannot be introduced by writ.
A division bench of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan was hearing the appeal against the single judge bench order by Justice GR Swaminathan, allowing the lighting of the Karthigai deepam at the stone structure on top of the Thiruparankundram hill.
Senior Advocate G Masilamani, appearing on behalf of the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Subramaniam Swamy Temple, said that there was no proof to claim that the practice of lighting the Karthigai deepam on the deepathoon.
“From 1862 to 2025, there's no evidence to show that the deepathoon was where the Karthigai deepam was lit. The long practice of not practising Karthigai Deepam on the pillar becomes the custom. He wants the practice of a non-practising custom." Masiamani submitted.
Advocate General PS Raman, appearing for Tamil Nadu, also argued that there was no proof that the light was lit at the stone pillar.
"If some kind of historically acceptable evidence was placed before this court through supporting documents that at some point before 1920 it used to be lit there, and for some reason it has been changed. There's no proof available before the judge.
He argued that the judge, in the absence of any proof, could not assume that for the past 102 years, parties had decided to light a lamp at a place.
“Can a court exercising power under Article 226 say no? In addition to that, you have to light it at the other place also? If a custom was broken, the constitutional right to worship was affected. Article 226 is not intended to change a custom by creating a new custom,” he said.
The petitioners also pointed out that there were four prior judgements relating to the same issue, including a two-judge bench verdict in 2017. Further, Masilamani noted that if the stone pillar on top of the hill was in fact a deepathoon, then it would have led to charring in the area, which did not exist in the present pillar.
He further stated that if the single judge had a different opinion, the matter should've been placed before the Chief Justice to be placed before a larger bench for a decision and that he did not have jurisdiction over the matter, which was conclusively settled.
The case has been moved to Monday, December 15, for further hearing.