New Delhi: The contentious legal battle involving a court granting permission to groups claiming to represent Hindus to light a ritual lamp at a pillar on the Thiruparankundram hill, located in Madurai, Tamil Nadu, reportedly took another controversial turn on Thursday.

The Madurai bench of the Madras high court, which had earlier this month permitted the lamp to be lit at the pillar, impleaded the Union home secretary in the case in a related contempt of court case. It means that the Union government may be allowed to intervene, or that the court could seek its views on the contempt case.

The move invited sharp criticism from the Communist Part of India, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi or VCK in Tamil Nadu. The parties said that the Union government has no connection with the matter – a law and order issue, strictly under the state government's remit in the constitution.

The case itself relates to the Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai and the sacred sites of multiple faiths, including Hinduism and Islam, which have been historically located on it.

While the leaders of all three parties protested against the inclusion of the Union government official, the VCK also demanded on Thursday that the Tamil Nadu government approach the Chief Justice of India regarding the rulings of the Madurai bench judge, the New Indian Express reported.

Background to the case

It is worth noting that on December 9, 107 Members of Parliament signed a petition seeking the impeachment of the same judge – Justice G.R. Swaminathan – who has impleaded the home secretary in New Delhi. The notice to impeach him, as it is officially termed, is with the Lok Sabha speaker.

Also read: INDIA Alliance Members Seek Removal of Justice G.R. Swaminathan After Madurai Hill Lamp Row

VCK president Thol Thirumavalavan said allowing Justice Swaminathan to continue hearing the case while the impeachment issue was pending could create "further unrest".

There have been recent skirmishes over the pillar on which the Hindu groups want to light the traditional lamp, which is opposed by the Muslims, who manage a dargah – the Sultan Pathusha Sikandar Auliya Dargah – on the same Thiruparankundram hillside.

What Thursday's hearing was about

The matter that arose before Justice Swaminathan on December 11 (Thursday) has to do with a contempt of court petition filed against various officials of the Tamil Nadu government. This plea was filed earlier this month, when state government authorities declined to implement Justice Swaminathan's court's order allowing Hindu groups to light the ritual lamp on 'Kartigai Deepam', a traditional Hindu celebration, at the pillar.

It is noteworthy that the pillar under question is a different site from where the Kartigai Deepam is known to have been observed thus far – at a nearby temple on the same hill.

The judge who granted permission to light the lamp was also Justice Swaminathan. He had ruled, based on a petition filed by the Hindu Makkal Katchi (Hindu Tamil Party) on November 13, that the Hindu groups who wanted to light the ritual lamp at a pillar near the dargah could do so under Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) protection. The ruling was delivered on December 1.

As reported earlier in The Wire, "in his 49-page judgment, Justice Swaminathan repeatedly described the pillar near the dargah as a 'deepathoon' (a term absent from earlier case records), using it 39 times. Although the petitioners produced no historical evidence that lamps were ever lit there, the judge drew on general references in Sangam literature about lighting lamps on hilltops to justify their demand."

An attempt was thereafter made by these groups to climb the hill and light the lamp with CISF personnel. However, the state government, including top regional police officials, prevented them.

The Dravida Munnetra Kazagham leader and state chief minister, M.K. Stalin, and police officials have cautioned that the order could not be complied with as it risked creating a law and order problem.

The state government has also approached a division bench of the Madras high court against the permission granted by Justice Swaminathan.

In response, the groups claiming to represent Hindu interests had filed the contempt petition, which came up for hearing before Justice Swaminathan on Thursday morning.

Recent developments

After the contempt plea was filed against it, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition, asking for the contempt case to be withdrawn.

Also read: Court, Temple, Dargah: What Sparked the Latest Battle Over a Shared Sacred Hill?

The state government also appealed the decision granting permission to light the lamp at the new location. This appeal is before the division bench of the Madras High Court's Madurai branch, which will hear the case on December 12 (Friday).

What happened on Thursday

At Thursday's hearing, the state government, represented by the Additional Advocate General, said Justice Swaminathan's bench should allow for the matter heard by the higher court – the division bench.

The AAG also said that the Supreme Court was seized of the matter, but the court did not want to pursue multiple litigations on the same issue. Therefore, it was waiting for the division bench to hear its case, the New Indian Express reported on Thursday.

The petitioners' (so-called Hindu groups') counsels, on the other hand, called it a delaying tactic. They said that the court of Justice Swaminathan must find against the state government officials in the contempt plea.

The petitioners' advocates argued that the division bench had not yet granted relief to the state government. Hence, the earlier ruling – Justice Swaminathan's order allowing the lamp to be lit at the pillar – was still valid, thereby suggesting that it must be enforced.

Tamil Nadu Police's advocate (representing the police commissioner of Madurai) argued that the case should be posted before the same bench only after a week, aftre the division bench had had adequate time to hear the state's plea at least more than once, including the scheduled hearing on Friday.

According to Live Law, which reported on Thursday's hearing on X, Senior advocate Vikas Singh, arguing for the police, said in court, "Court can't ask temple to do something at a particular place just because the devotee wants it. Ultimately court has to decide the law. Implementation is with the executive. If executive feels that there's a law and order problem, it's for them to decide."

"Judge directs appearance of Chief Secretary and ADGP [law and order] through [Virtual Conferencing] on 17/12. Impleads Home secretary. Issues statutory notice to DCP Inigo Divyan," Live Law also said on X.

Justice Swaminathan has scheduled the next hearing in the contempt plea for December 17, a Wednesday – almost exactly a week from Thursday – Live Law reported.

Also read: Why Communal Tension in Tamil Nadu’s Thiruparankundram is Another Warning Signal

Why parties are involved

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ruling at the Union and in opposition in Tamil Nadu, has been backing the Hindu groups' demand to light the traditional diya at the new site. The groups themselves claim historical precedence for this.

This dargah management contests this claim, while acknowledging that people of all faiths have shared sacred spaces on the Thiruparankundram hill. That is, whether dargah or temple (including one said to be of Jain heritage), all are accessed by members of all faiths, without any restriction.

The dargah management also says, as reported recently in The Wire, that the pillar in question passes through land marked as belonging to it. And it says that the pillar itself has been recorded as a survey pillar from the British raj era, and has nothing to do with religious practices.

Meanwhile, the Hindu Tamil Party and other groups said in court on Thursday that "patience and magnanimity has caused us a lot for 1000 years," Live Law reported.

Chief Minister Stalin has said that the legal effort of the Hindu groups and parties is not to allow a ritual but to create discord between the Hindus and the Muslims.

The left parties and the VCK oppose the ongoing effort on grounds that it would stoke unrest in the name of religion.

Also read: 'Sinister Eye on Political Gain': Left Parties Issue Joint Statement Condemning Madurai Hill Controversy

VCK chief Thol Thirumavalavan says Justice Swaminathan must not be allowed to hear cases as it could create "further unrest", since his impeachment is in process, the New Indian Express reported.

He has appealed to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court not to assign any fresh cases to the judge. And it has urged him to step down voluntarily to ensure a fair inquiry into the impeachment process, initiated by them and 107 opposition leaders in parliament.

Recently, the Left parties issued a joint statement making it clear that the matter related to Thiruparankundram hill is not about religious freedom but about stoking discord and unrest.

In their statement, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Communist Party of India, the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation, the Revolutionary Socialist Party and the All India Forward Bloc accuse the BJP and allied Hindutva organisations of attempting to manufacture unrest for political advantage.

Their charge is that what has been a symbol of coexistence has been pulled into a calculated attempt to stoke communitarian passions in Tamil Nadu.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.