Karthigai Deepam row: Madras HC stays order allowing festival at Mandu Kovil in Dindigul

Mr. Jindal
3 Min Read

The State government had told the court that a volatile situation prevailed on the ground at Mandu Kovil, warranting prohibitory orders.

The State government had told the court that a volatile situation prevailed on the ground at Mandu Kovil, warranting prohibitory orders.
| Photo Credit: R. ASHOK

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday ordered an interim stay against a Single Bench order dated December 2, which granted permission to conduct Karthigai Deepam festival at Mandu Kovil, which is in the immediate vicinity of the Kaliamman temple in Perumal Kovilpatti in Dindigul District.

A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan passed the order while hearing a batch of appeals, including the one filed by the State against the order passed by Justice G.R. Swaminathan.

On December 2, Justice Swaminathan had permitted the conduct of the event. He said in the village in question, Christians are in a majority and Hindus are in a minority and all that the Hindu community wanted was to be allowed to celebrate Karthigai Deepam in a place recognised as Mandu Kovil in revenue records. There was also a Peedam at the said site.

The judge had said by permitting the Hindu community to celebrate the event for a few hours on December 3 and 4, the rights of the Christian community will not in any way be affected. This is all the more so because the Christian community had no claim over said site. The right of any Hindu of Perumal Kovilpatti to offer worship and celebrate the festival is definitely a fundamental right recognised by Article 25 of the Constitution, the order said.

However, the Dindigul Collector had issued prohibitory orders under Section 163(1) of BNSS. After a contempt of court case was filed for non-compliance of the order, Justice G.R. Swaminathan summoned Dindigul Collector S. Saravanan and Superintendent of Police A. Pradeep to appear before him. Disapproving of the Collector’s action, the judge said, “The order of the court was not only not complied with but also brazenly defied.” The State had told the court that a volatile situation prevailed on the ground, warranting prohibitory orders.

Share This Article
Leave a Comment