Chennai: The Madras High Court on Tuesday upheld a single judge’s order permitting the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at a stone pillar—identified as a Deepathoon—on the lower of the twin peaks atop the Thiruparankundram hillock, which houses both the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple and the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah.
A Division Bench comprising Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan dismissed appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu government, the Madurai district administration, the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and the dargah, strongly rejecting claims that the ritual could disturb public order.
The Bench observed that the appellants had failed to place any credible or formidable evidence to establish that lighting the Karthigai Deepam at the stone pillar was prohibited under the Agama Shastras.
Rejecting the State’s law and order argument, the Court made sharp observations, stating that it was “ridiculous and hard to believe” that a powerful State feared a breakdown of public peace merely because a lamp was being lit by temple authorities on temple land.
“Unless such disturbances are sponsored by the State itself,” the Bench remarked, adding, “We pray that no State should stoop to that level to achieve its political agenda.”
The Court said the apprehension of unrest was nothing but an “imaginary ghost conveniently created,” which had only succeeded in breeding mistrust between communities.
The Bench also criticised what it termed a “mischievous” submission by the Waqf Board claiming ownership of the stone pillar, observing that religious practices have well-founded reasons and that lighting a deepam at an elevated place enables devotees at the foothills to see and worship.
“When such a customary practice exists, there is no plausible reason for the temple management to deny devotees their request,” the Court held.
Upholding the single judge’s findings, the Division Bench directed the temple devasthanam to light the lamp at the stone pillar, categorically rejecting the State’s hesitation over whether the structure was indeed a Deepathoon.
At the same time, the Court allowed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to impose necessary conditions to preserve the monument and directed that no members of the public should accompany the temple authorities during the ritual. The District Collector was instructed to supervise and coordinate the event.
The Bench emphasised that the guidelines laid down in its detailed judgment would enable both Hindu and Muslim communities to celebrate their respective festivals on the hillock without interference.
“We want peaceful coexistence. The Constitution and natural resources belong to everyone. Freedom of religion must be exercised without disturbing others,” the judges observed, while noting that the detailed judgment is awaited.
The verdict arose from appeals challenging an earlier ruling by Justice G.R. Swaminathan, who had held that the stone pillar was a Deepathoon and ordered the restoration of the tradition of lighting the Karthigai Deepam atop the hill, in addition to the existing ritual at the Ucchi Pillayar temple.
Justice Swaminathan had relied on a 1920s civil court judgment, which recorded that only certain portions of the hill belonged to the dargah, while the remaining areas—including the Deepathoon site—belonged to the temple. He had also ruled that the practice did not infringe upon the rights of the nearby Muslim shrine.
Despite the order, Madurai authorities prevented devotees from ascending the hill during the 2025 Karthigai Deepam, citing public order concerns, leading to the festival passing without the lamp being lit. This prompted a contempt petition, which remains pending before Justice Swaminathan.
During the appeals, Advocate General P.S. Raman argued that there was no proven tradition of lighting the pillar and questioned whether the court could revive a practice that was allegedly not customary. He suggested that the matter be resolved through an inquiry under Section 63 of the HR&CE Act.
The Waqf Board also proposed mediation. However, Hindu devotees opposed the suggestion, contending that such mechanisms only delay justice and repeatedly require Hindus to relinquish their rights in the name of coexistence.
Tuesday’s verdict decisively settles the issue—for now—by affirming religious practice, dismissing speculative law and order fears, and reinforcing constitutional guarantees of faith and tradition.
