Srimathi Advt Mhc: The criticism misses the central point of Justice G.R. Swaminathan’s order.

[12/12, 21:15] Srimathi Advt Mhc: The criticism misses the central point of Justice G.R. Swaminathan’s order.
The judge was not “inventing” a new Deepathoon , he was responding to a documented historical conflict of claims and attempting to preserve a fragile status quo between two faith traditions on a sacred hill that has always carried layered identities.

When a site has long-standing plural usage, the court must prevent unilateral erasure of one tradition by administrative convenience.

The judge’s approach reflects three sound principles:

1. Constitutional sensitivity to shared spaces:
Tirupparankundram Hill is not a blank slate. It is a palimpsest of temple worship, Sufi presence, and long-standing pathways used by both. A court cannot ignore this lived history.

2. Judicial duty to prevent fait accompli:
When an authority’s decision risks permanently altering a claimed custom, the writ court is not powerless. It can — and must — ensure that no irreversible step is taken until competing claims receive fuller adjudication.
3. Article 226 as a safeguard, not a straitjacket:
The AG’s insistence that 226 is too “extraordinary” for such matters overlooks the reality that extraordinary jurisdiction exists precisely for situations where immediate injustice or unilateral administrative overreach is alleged.
“Go file a civil suit” is not a real remedy when the festival is tomorrow and the alleged suppression of a tradition would be irreversible.
Justice Swaminathan did what a constitutional judge is expected to do: protect coexistence, prevent erasure, and ensure that faith-based disputes do not become flashpoints.
IMHO
Far from overstepping, he acted with situational wisdom and constitutional balance.
[12/12, 21:17]