Karthigai Deepam Row: Sr Adv Vikas Singh Questions Constitutional Conduct of Justice Swaminathan, Hints at Electoral Ambitions

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh representing the Tamil Nadu state authorities on Tuesday mounted a sharp attack on the order passed by Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras high court permitting the lighting of a lamp at a stone pillar, described as “Deepathoon”, atop Thiruparankundram hill during the Karthigai Deepam festival, going so far as to question the judge’s constitutional conduct and suggesting that the decision strayed far beyond judicial authority.

The remarks were made during the hearing of appeals before a division bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan, which is examining challenges to Justice Swaminathan’s December 1 order. The challenge to Justice Swaminathan's order is by the Tamil Nadu government (the district and police authorities), the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swami Temple, and Sikkandar Badusha Dargah all of whom have raised concerns over public order, settled property rights and the absence of any legally recognised religious custom.

Appearing for the district administration and police authorities, Singh repeatedly asserted that the single judge had created a religious right where none existed. He argued that historical records and binding decrees conclusively established that there was no custom of lighting a lamp at the stone pillar and that attempts to do so in the past were actively restrained due to the area falling within the rights of those managing the dargah on the hill.

Tracing the dispute to earlier litigation, Singh relied on a 1923 decree to submit that while the hill was broadly held to belong to the Devasthanam, the Nellithope area and the flight of steps leading to the dargah were clearly recognised as falling under Muslim rights. According to him, the 1923 decree expressly recorded that attempts by Hindus to light a lamp at the top of the hill were stopped and that there was no old or established custom supporting such a practice.

“There is no agama, no shashtra, and no legal material to support this claimed religious right,” Singh told the court, contending that even the term “Deepathoon” found no mention in any earlier judgment and appeared for the first time only in the writ petition that led to the impugned order.

Singh further argued that the single judge ignored the constitutional limitation that Articles 25 and 26 are subject to public order. Allowing access to the stone pillar, which lies on the route to the dargah, would, he warned, create serious law and order challenges, particularly on Karthigai Deepam day when lakhs of devotees could attempt to reach the site. He questioned how the order contemplated crowd regulation when the area itself was narrow and fell within land historically recognised as belonging to the dargah.

The sharpest criticism, however, he laid on the judge himself. Singh submitted that Justice Swaminathan had gone beyond the pleadings by directing that an “additional lamp” be lit at the site, even though no such relief was sought by the petitioner. “What is this ‘additional’ lamp and where does it come from?” he asked, describing the direction as judicial overreach.

At one point, Singh remarked, “I wonder what the judge was doing in this process,” and went on to say that the order created public disorder rather than preserving public order. He alleged that the judge had no material whatsoever to conclude that a Deepathoon existed and that, even assuming it did, the judge had no business directing the lighting of a lamp there. At most, Singh said, the court could have asked the authorities to explore the feasibility, nothing more.

Singh’s remarks drew an objection from counsel on the opposite side, who termed them unfair. Responding, Singh said the court would soon see how unfortunate the situation was, adding that the judge would be seen contesting an election “very soon”. He also stated that while he had refrained from commenting on the impeachment notice moved against Justice Swaminathan, it was legitimate to see whether the judge had adhered to his constitutional duties.

The bench did not immediately respond to the remarks on the judge but continued to hear submissions on the merits of the appeals. The court also indicated that it would consider the Waqf Board’s earlier offer for court-monitored mediation and sought to hear the perspective of the Archaeological Survey of India.

The hearing is set to resume after the lunch break.

Case Title: The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramanian Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, Madurai vs. Rama Ravikumar and Others with connected matters

Hearing Date: December 16, 2025

Bench: Justices G Jayachandran and K K Ramakrishnan