Justice Jayachandran asks what is wrong in changing the place of lighting the Deepam on the hill if there can be better visibility for the people on the ground. AG says, that cannot be the parameter to change a customary practice in vogue for decades together. [12/12, 13:13] Sekarreporter: Advocate General concludes his arguments. Now, Senior Counsel G. Masilamani is ready to commence his arguments on behalf of the Executive Officer of Tirupparankundram Subramaniaswamy Temple.

[12/12, 13:09] Sekarreporter: AG wonders how can Justice GR Swaminathan say that at least to establish the right of the temple over the entire hill, but for the place where the dargah was located and the flight of steps leading to it, the Deepam should be lit on the stone now being called Deepathoon
[12/12, 13:10] Sekarreporter: AG says, if every judge begins to suggest a new place for lighting the Deepam, there will be hundreds of options. Can it be done has to be tested by the Division Bench. There was not a scrap of paper before the single judge to prove that the stone pillar is a Deepathoon, he adds
[12/12, 13:10] Sekarreporter: AG says, when the Tirupparankundram temple priests had clearly said that the Deepam should be lit only at Uchipillaiyar temple and the temple management also had taken the same view, the writ court cannot take a contrary view.
[12/12, 13:10] Sekarreporter: AG asks where is the proof for GRSJ to say that a tradition had been abandoned. Where is the tradition? he asks and says, when the court poses a wrong question, it will only get a wrong answer. There is no factual basis of any tradition having been abandoned, he says.
[12/12, 13:11] Sekarreporter: AG now comes to the issue of ‘balance of convenience’ decided by GRSJ. He says, GRSJ’s intention appears only to protect the temple’s property rights by insisting upon lighting the lamp on the so called Deepathoon near the Dargah.
[12/12, 13:12] Sekarreporter: AG says the power under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts) is extraordinary. But more extraordinary the power, the greater the restraint that is required. So, the court must take into consideration the ground realitiies before exercising such a power, he adds.
[12/12, 13:12] Sekarreporter: AG says, the petitioner can always file a civil suit and establish whether the so called Deepathoon is really a Deepathoon and whether the Deepam was ever lit on it or not. However, those issues cannot be decided under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction), he adds.
[12/12, 13:12] Sekarreporter: Justice Jayachandran asks what is wrong in changing the place of lighting the Deepam on the hill if there can be better visibility for the people on the ground. AG says, that cannot be the parameter to change a customary practice in vogue for decades together.
[12/12, 13:13] Sekarreporter: Advocate General concludes his arguments. Now, Senior Counsel G. Masilamani is ready to commence his arguments on behalf of the Executive Officer of Tirupparankundram Subramaniaswamy Temple.
[12/12, 13:13] Sekarreporter: Justice G. Jayachandran says, he wants to hear the EO and want to know why the officer had not taken a decision on changing the place of lighting Deepam when Justice Kanagaraj, in his judgement, had left it to the discretion of the EO to take a call on the issue.