SC did not interfere with the Madras High Court order, reduced the fine to Rs 5,000

Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu: The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the Madras High Court order dismissing a plea seeking action against officials who did not allow Hindu devotees to light lamps on Thiruparankundram hill, after allowing religious gatherings during the month of Ramzan.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha, comprising Justices Arvind Kumar and Justice Sri Chandrasekhar, commented on the Madurai Bench High Court order saying that they did not want to interfere with the High Court’s decision. However, regarding the amount of fine imposed on the petitioner Hindu Dharma Parishad, the bench said that the fine of Rs 50,000 is excessive considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court said in its order that the amount of fine can be reduced to Rs 5,000. The court issued this order on June 2. The Supreme Court clarified that its objective is not to interfere with the High Court order, but in view of the high amount of the fine, it was considered justified in reducing it.

The case pertains to the controversy over religious ceremonies at Thiruparankundram hill. The concerned authorities had given permission for religious ceremonies during the month of Ramzan, but Hindu devotees were not allowed to light lamps. A petition was filed against this, demanding action against the officials. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court had rejected this petition, after which the matter reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court also said that the court does not want to interfere with the High Court order, but reducing the amount of fine is appropriate according to justice and circumstances. The Court took this decision on the basis that a fine of Rs 50,000 imposes an excessive burden on the petitioner and is not in keeping with the facts of the case.

Experts say that this step of the Supreme Court can be considered just and balanced. The court clearly indicated that the Supreme Court would interfere in administrative decisions in matters related to religious places and festivals only in appropriate cases. Reducing the fine amount to Rs 5,000 is part of this approach.

This decision also sends a message that the court is trying to maintain a balance between administrative decisions and religious disputes. The court made it clear that the order of the High Court will be respected, but the Supreme Court has the right to justify the amount of fine by reducing it in the case.

Overall, the Supreme Court has revised the amount of fine while maintaining the order of the High Court in this case. This has resulted in a balanced and equitable solution keeping in mind the interests of both the petitioner and the administration.