If a Division Bench ruling is to be overturned, the matter must go before a larger bench or the Supreme Court. A single judge cannot do it.
Published Dec 05, 2025 | 2:50 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 05, 2025 | 3:37 PM
Certain religious fundamentalists and divisive groups have begun insisting that the lamp must instead be lit on a boundary stone located near a Dargah.
Synopsis: The enormous power of judicial review given to judges is not due to their personal brilliance; it is a responsibility entrusted by the Constitution. But the question today is whether they are using that power democratically. Judges like Justice Swaminathan are converting the judiciary into an instrument for implementing a Manu-ist agenda. This is nothing but an attack on the Constitution.
A few divisive forces are stirring up a controversy over the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam in Tirupparankundram in Tamil Nadu’s Madurai district.
For more than a hundred years, the lamp has been lit near the Uchchipillaiyar Temple in Tirupparankundram. There is even an old inscriptional record supporting this traditional location.
Ignoring this, certain religious fundamentalists and divisive groups have begun insisting that the lamp must instead be lit on a boundary stone located near a Dargah. They are attempting to use the courts for this purpose.
Immediately after the BJP came to power in 2014, a case was filed on this issue before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. In 2017, a Division Bench, comprising Justice Kalyanasundaram and Justice Bhavani Subbarayan, heard the case.
“The present practice of lighting ‘Karthigai Deepam‘ near ‘Motcha Deepam‘ when the authorities as well as the representatives of the Dargah is performed peacefully for the last few decades, there is no reason why such peace and tranquillity maintained by both the communities should be disturbed”, the court held and dismissed the petition [W. A (MD) No. 1524 of 2014, dated 07.12.2017].
The petitioners had then argued that “the present lamp-lighting spot is close to the Moksha Deepam, and therefore lighting the Karthigai Deepam there violates the agama rules; permission should instead be granted to light it near the Dargah.”
The court responded that the petitioners had failed to prove which agama rule prohibits lighting the Karthigai Deepam near the Moksha Deepam.
The Bench also cited a similar judgment of the Madras High Court’s Division Bench [W.A(MD)No.1442 of 2014 (Ganesan v the Superintendent of Police), dated 19.07.2017], which stressed the need to preserve harmony. On that basis, the case was dismissed.
In 1996, too, a similar case was filed, demanding that the lamp be lit near the Dargah. The high court then ruled that “only the Devasthanam may light the lamp on the Tirupparankundram hill.” It specifically stated that the lamp must be lit in the traditional mandapam at the Subramaniaswamy Temple near the Uchchipillaiyar Temple.
The 1996 order further said, if, in future, any new location on the hill is to be permitted for lighting the lamp, prior approval must be obtained from the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, and the approved place must be at least 75 metres away from the Dargah, steps, and Nellithoppu areas reserved under the 1920 order.
Contrary to both the 1996 judgment and the 2017 Division Bench ruling, Justice GR Swaminathan of the high court’s Madurai Bench has now issued a new directive, describing the boundary stone near the Dargah as a “lamppost,” ordering that the lamp must be lit there.
He further declared that the order must be implemented immediately, or contempt of court proceedings would follow. Additionally, he even instructed CISF personnel—posted there for the court’s security—to enforce his order.
The Tamil Nadu government appealed against this illegal order, but the Madurai Bench’s Division Bench dismissed the appeal and allowed the contempt proceedings initiated by Justice Swaminathan to continue.
Astonishingly, not only Justice Swaminathan but even the two judges on the Division Bench failed to consider the binding 2017 ruling of another Division Bench.
If a Division Bench ruling is to be overturned, the matter must go before a larger bench or the Supreme Court. A single judge cannot do it. Their failure to follow even this basic judicial practice reminds us of the proverb: “Anger is the enemy of wisdom.”
The Tamil Nadu government has now approached the Supreme Court.
If we ask what the primary function of law is, we usually say: to maintain social order.
But Ambedkar declared: “The function of law is to remove the faults of society.” He pointed out that one of the key differences between ancient and modern societies is this: in ancient societies, law was considered divine and unalterable; in modern societies, law changes with time and need.
“Societies that treated law as divine stagnated without progress. India is a prime example,” Ambedkar said.
Indian society was not always like this. “No other country has seen as many intellectual revolutions as India,” Ambedkar noted.
“Even before Europeans questioned the Papal authority, India had already witnessed the clash between divine law and secular law. The foundation of secular law is found in Kautilya’s Arthashastra. Unfortunately, divine law won—and that has been India’s greatest tragedy.”
What Ambedkar called “divine law” is the Manu Dharma, which preaches hierarchy and inequality based on birth. Ambedkar destroyed the Manusmriti and gave India its Constitution in 1950. Yet the followers of Manu have still not accepted the Constitution. They continue to act against it—with institutional support from the RSS.
When the BJP came to power, it passed a law to form a commission for judicial appointments. The Supreme Court struck it down and reaffirmed the collegium system.
Many believed this would keep the executive from interfering in the judiciary. But since that judgement, the collegium has increasingly aligned itself with the preferences of the ruling establishment. That is why, while the BJP rushed to overturn the Supreme Court ruling on Election Commissioner appointments, it has done nothing to challenge the National Judicial Appointment Commission verdict.
As a result of an unwritten understanding between the Union Government and the Supreme Court, many RSS-trained individuals have been appointed as judges. Although they swear to uphold the Constitution, their judgements reflect Manusmriti-style thinking. Justice GR Swaminathan’s order is a clear example.
Democracy in danger
During the Constituent Assembly debates, concerns were raised that democracy would collapse if judges and the executive ever acted in concert. One member even proposed an amendment prohibiting retired judges from accepting government posts.
Ambedkar rejected it, saying, “Courts will mostly hear cases between citizens. Disputes between citizens and the government will be rare. Therefore, judges will not be influenced by the executive.”
But Justice Swaminathan’s actions show that Ambedkar’s faith has been betrayed.
The enormous power of judicial review given to judges is not due to their personal brilliance; it is a responsibility entrusted by the Constitution. But the question today is whether they are democratically using that power.
Judges like Justice Swaminathan are converting the judiciary into an instrument for implementing a Manu-ist agenda. This is nothing but an attack on the Constitution.
Until now, the issue of lighting the lamp in Tirupparankundram was only a dispute between a few divisive groups and the HR&CE Department. Justice Swaminathan has transformed it into a confrontation between Manuvaad and the Constitution. Those who believe in safeguarding the Constitution can no longer remain mere spectators.
[Dr D. Ravikumar is a second-time MP and the General Secretary of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK). Views are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu].
