The Madras High Court is reviewing a controversial order permitting the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp atop Thirupparankundram Hill. Temple authorities, the State, and a dargah contest the fast-tracked PIL on procedural grounds.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court heard appeals against a controversial order that allowed the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp on an ancient stone pillar atop Thirupparankundram Hill, a site shared by a historic Hindu temple and an Islamic dargah. The appeals were filed by the Arulmigu Subramanian Swamy Temple and the Tamil Nadu government, questioning both the legality and the procedure followed by a single judge in granting permission.
A division bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan is examining whether the earlier ruling, delivered on December 1, complied with established legal norms governing public interest litigation (PIL).
Representing the Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah, Senior Advocate T. Mohan told the court that the PIL was disposed of with unusual urgency, leaving affected parties without a reasonable chance to participate.
According to Mohan, the dargah, located on the same hill and directly impacted by the decision, was not initially included as a respondent. It was brought into the case only after substantive proceedings had already taken place, undermining the principles of natural justice.
He further argued that standard timelines were ignored, pointing out that while respondents are typically allowed several weeks to submit counter affidavits, the dargah was given only a few days, effectively preventing it from presenting its case.
Mohan also raised concerns about the conduct of the hearing itself, claiming that he was disconnected from the virtual court session and that the judge proceeded without waiting for his reappearance. He described the decision-making process as summary in nature and said it failed to engage with settled legal principles governing religious disputes.
He additionally questioned the very basis of the PIL, arguing that courts cannot entertain petitions driven by cultural sentiment or ideological claims in the absence of a clearly enforceable legal right.
During the hearing, the division bench made it clear that it would focus strictly on whether the single judge’s order could be legally sustained, and not on surrounding events or public reactions. Counsel were repeatedly asked to remain within this narrow framework.
Senior Advocate A.K. Sriram, appearing for another appellant, criticised the setting aside of the temple executive officer’s order without a detailed examination. He highlighted that the trust board, a key statutory body, was never made a party to the case, despite having a direct role in the administration of temple affairs.
Sriram also argued that labelling the lamp-lighting ceremony as a “Tamil tradition” does not automatically justify judicial intervention. He stressed that disputes involving religious customs must be addressed through statutory mechanisms, rather than PILs that short-circuit established procedures.
Appearing for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, Senior Advocate N. Jothi supported the appeals and flagged concerns about public safety. He said the department has a legal duty to regulate religious activities under the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, especially when such events have the potential to trigger unrest.
Jothi cautioned that allowing courts to entertain loosely framed PILs in sensitive religious matters could lead to repeated litigation and administrative chaos, placing an unnecessary burden on public authorities.
Read More Reports On Karthigai Deepam
